View Full Version : Janet has outdone herself!

15th Mar 2008, 16:57
Caution!! Australian content! If you're not interested don't bother complaining.

I've stuck up for Janet recently because it is a firm conviction of mine that any western democracy is only a step away from a pretend democracy where governments are returned with 90+% of the vote. What keeps us from falling over that step is a strong opposition.

I sometimes despair at the adversarial results this brings, and the apparent belief that oppositions must oppose everything regardless of merit. It is that ingrained attitude that prevents oppositions praising a good decision by the government, or (even less likely), a government accepting an opposition has got something right and will amend its policy to reflect that for the benefit of all Australians (insert own country here).

But every time I start to think there is a crossover point, where sensible debate can be entertained from both sides, I'm faced with a piece of journalistic crap from an intelligent person so possessed by their own beliefs they cannot accept reality in any form. I am more than happy to accept this happens on both sides of politics, and I have come to shudder at articles by the likes of Phillip Adams.

I have no problem with unabashed conservatives; in weaker moments I have been known to concede lots of points, especially referring to political correctness, Laura Norder, and the criminal dumbing down of education in our schools thanks to the teachers spawned by my baby boomer generation.

But I found myself with mouth utterly agape at this piece of crap from Janet. This is as close to a journalistic blowjob as I've ever seen in any respectable newspaper. It would exceed available bandwidth to point out the number of times she ignores current reality in the comforting notion that she will be proven right in the long run, as conservatives always are. Just love the wide-ranging sample of views she quotes from the AEI! Yep, the full gamut from Ronnie Raygun to, well, Henry Kissinger and Alan Greenspan!

On a scale of one to ten, I'd still give her one, but on the strength of this adoring piece of crap, I'd have to gag her first.


Standard Noise
15th Mar 2008, 17:35
Ah Binos, just thank yer lucky stars you haven't got an opposition which sees itself as the Prime Minister's reserve team. With the Tories it's not so much what they can oppose as what they can't oppose.

15th Mar 2008, 20:22
Why begrudge John Howard receiving the accolades from those who consider him one of their own, and who wish to acknowledge his contribution to their cause? You won the election. Isn't that enough to sate your anger?

I regard him highly because he stood with us at a time when few would, and I won't forget that. Like Tony Blair, it probably cost him the margin he needed to remain in power. Perhaps his principles weren't pragmatic, but he stood on them to the end.

History will accord Bush, Blair and Howard their due. The final account remains to be written, as Howard and Janet fairly assert.

Twelve years in power is a long time. Australia did prosper during the time Howard led, but he lost his mandate. It's the beauty of a democratic framework that change can happen peacefully at the will of the people. If you don't like Howard, I recommend you simply take heart in your victory and rejoice at the freedom you have to have achieved it. That should be enough.

15th Mar 2008, 22:58
I'm not of your Ilk, but my chums in 'OZ' who voted for JH (they thought a change a good idea) now think he's a ****, along with his MPs'.

Isolationist/s are how they now think of him/them!

15th Mar 2008, 23:39
I do not think you are going to get the response you desire in here Binos
Why not send it to ... [email protected]

Pontius Navigator
16th Mar 2008, 00:03
Binos, I think I would agree with you.

I thought we should abolish all political parties. That way, at a stroke, we could abolish funding issues and 'bribery' etc where non-doms slip the odd million in for altrusitic purposes.

Every constituency would be fought by people who had to convince their voters that they would represent them and not some political one-size fits none manifesto.

Then votes in wanabee leaders try and garner support. The man with the mostest get asked to form a government.

OK, the Israelis do it that way :p

16th Mar 2008, 00:09
I think it is Binos hatred of JWH that shines through as the problem here and not Janet's journalism. JWH actually wasn't that unpopular and polled more votes in his own constituency than the girl that got the seat, she didn't win it outright, just got it via this second choice crap.

16th Mar 2008, 02:23
Oh, tinny, if I were looking for massive support for my opinion, do you really think I would seek it here of all places?


16th Mar 2008, 03:20
History will accord Bush, Blair and Howard their due.one can only hope.

16th Mar 2008, 10:10
Correct, parabellum. As for the preferential voting process, the system delivered what the (swinging) voters deserved.

Buster Hyman
16th Mar 2008, 11:58
Geez, just when I thought all the gloating & back slapping had died down....:rolleyes:

Track Coastal
16th Mar 2008, 12:18
"The most constant comment made in the lead-up to the last election is that Rudd was trying to be a younger version of me. And there is some truth to that ... He did not win because he was different. He won because he was like me."

*ROFLMAO* Classic stuff! :D:D

16th Mar 2008, 12:31
Buster, some of us see/hear what we want to see/hear. If you would just enlighten me as to what part of my post you think constitutes either gloating or backslapping, I'll graciously concede your point.

My point, on the other hand, since you and a couple of others seem to have missed it rather spectacularly, was aimed directly at a sycophantic piece of journalism from somebody whose views I normally respect as being well written even if I don't agree with them.

16th Mar 2008, 12:37
oh well, only time will tell now whether Dave and Mabel will do better than JWH et al..

Buster Hyman
16th Mar 2008, 12:55
Ahh, I see...it was only coincidental, that it was about Howard. Right, gotcha!:rolleyes:

No, there was no gloating in the initial post...but you know very well where these threads go. Besides, you have once again assumed that because I didn't address the article directly, I have totally missed your point. I know exactly what you mean by the sychophantic press...I'm currently living through it!

I agree, it's high time that Governments & Opposition provide credit where credit is due but, you couldn't deny that Rudd has made it an art form, surely? Was it Political expediency, or a genuine opinion? If the former, then TC's quote is 100% spot on, if the latter, then perhaps the Opposition will learn a thing or two from across the bench.

Time will tell...

16th Mar 2008, 14:14
I notice no-one has wished Binos a Happy Birthday!

So I won't either.

16th Mar 2008, 14:52
"My point, on the other hand, since you and a couple of others seem to have missed it rather spectacularly, was aimed directly at a sycophantic piece of journalism from somebody whose views I normally respect as being well written even if I don't agree with them."

That is the trouble, you see, some of us didn't think it was sycophantic at all, in fact we thought it was spot on. As previously mentioned, you have a problem with JWH and it appears to be consuming you Binos.

16th Mar 2008, 15:10
Consuming me? I'm currently consumed by several things, PB, none of which have the remotest connection with politics. I drop by here and state my opinions occasionally as a means of escape from the things that really do matter.

It's true I find it amusing if you thought that article was spot on, but even Gough still has his admirers who won't hear a bad word said about him, so long may your adoration continue.

In the meantime, Australia will get on with real life, still as a conservative society but with a more broad-minded outlook in the eyes of the majority. (Yep, the old preferential voting system can be really annoying at times, can't it?)

And Johnny will find his place in that ridiculous alternate existence called the speaking circuit, where has-beens and never-were's of all shapes, sizes and political persuasions are paid ludicrous amounts of money to share their irrelevant views with the faithful who claim the expense as a tax deduction so it is passed on to the consumer.

Perhaps Janet could apply to be Johnny's manager? Now that would really be a win-win situation.

16th Mar 2008, 19:41
PARABELLUM.... Short memory? PV kept a succession of LIB/NAT coallition Governments in power for years at both FEDERAL and STATE levels..:ugh::ugh::ugh:

16th Mar 2008, 20:08
Janet has outdone herself!
Caution!! Australian content! If you're not interested don't bother complaining.

I've stuck up for Janet recently

I'm not complaining, just curious.

Who's Janet?

Ken Wells
17th Mar 2008, 00:01
Janet Albrechtsen, Aus jorno. if had just read the thread and checked the link you would have known:


thought the Gif was in the Aus spirit!!

17th Mar 2008, 01:09

an ex australian PM receiving an award from an american institution for 'intellectual / practical improvements to guvnment policies or social welfare'.

What seems lost by most people is the readiness of our pollies to grab prizes they didn't really earn, yet forbid the massess of australians who either worked within or along side the various US military organisations in engagements around the world - most notably Vietnam - and have had their gongs offered to them by the US right royally rejected by our very own pollies.

Read an excellent book by a RAAF FAC "Sock it to em baby" co authored by Gary Cooper -(ex RAAF and Ansett and other airlines) and Robert Hillier and weep!

Gongs to pollies - what an absolute mutual masterbation ceremony.

17th Mar 2008, 03:32



Have you been singing the political blues? Have you been waiting for a politician to say the right things, and are you more than a little disappointed with the right-of-center political landscape as we approach spring 2008? Well, have I got the guy for you. He's a leader. He's honest. And he's available.

The one hitch -- isn't there always one? -- is that he's an Aussie. But aren't constitutions made to be amended?

Australian Prime Minister John Howard speaks to his supporters after conceding defeat at a hotel in Sydney November 24, 2007. Howard conceded defeat at national elections on Saturday as the Labor opposition swept to power ending 11 years of conservative rule. REUTERS/Mick Tsikas (AUSTRALIA)
Related Media:
VIDEO: Howard Concedes Defeat in Australian Election
VIDEO: Howard Loses Parliamentary Seat

At the annual American Enterprise Institute gala at the Washington Hilton, former Australian Prime Minister John Howard delivered a full-spectrum apologia for conservatism.

Recipient of the Irving Kristol Award that night at this think tank known for "neo-conservative" foreign policy, Howard did a lot more than simply defend the war in Iraq and emphasize the need to stay vigilant in the fight against Islamic fascism (which would have been important testimonies by themselves).

Howard hit all the right (yes, Right) buttons for me: He talked about the importance of free markets in raising people up, he talked about the importance of school choice and religious education, he even plugged my friend and colleague John O'Sullivan's book "The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World," on how Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher ended the Cold War. He defended the traditional family, doing so with both a sense of urgency and compassion. He told the elite dinner crowd, which included Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, vice-presidential spouse Lynne Cheney and other D.C. conservative celebrities and policymakers, "We should maintain a cultural bias in favor of traditional families. That doesn't mean discriminating against single parents, but it does mean ceaselessly propounding the advantages for a child of being raised by both a mother and father. Marriage is a bedrock social institution -- with an unmistakable meaning and resonance. It should be kept as such." He cautioned against a "soft underbelly of cultural self-doubt in certain Western societies."

Howard has all the right enemies, too -- the real one being the terrorists who hate our way of life. He criticized Democrats for their "naive" and "dangerous" moves to withdraw from Iraq. But he also took time to knock multilateral institutions like the United Nations, the liberal media and the "insidious tide of political correctness." He took issue with the archbishop of Canterbury, who recently voiced support for the allowance of Sharia law within Britain's own law. How can a nation inculcate a respect for the rule of law when it offers citizens multiple laws to choose from?

While I'll be voting for John McCain in the fall, I can understand why some conservatives might read this or listen to Howard's speech and pine for a time machine to go back to his prime ministership in Australia and take a political vacation in an ideological heaven. But that's not how politics works. And it's not all that bad here in the United States. McCain is a disappointment inasmuch as he is not a defender of all the values I hold dear. He has admitted that he doesn't care so much for the social issues that move me. We face fundamental challenges in our culture, and some presidential support wouldn't hurt. But here's another consideration: We won't be having these debates if we're dead. And on Sept. 11, 2001, the plane that went down in the fields of Pennsylvania was headed for one of the very places where we have these debates, where policy is carved out in Washington, D.C. McCain has been a stalwart defender of the surge policy in Iraq. So even if I wanted another candidate, I can rally to McCain -- particularly if he teams himself up with an experienced leader with a devotion to the issues I care about.

As Howard put it, "the battle of ideas is never completely won and must always command both our attention and our energy." This is where we can come together. McCain, I suspect, has realized it. Conservatives will realize it. A conservative vice president might help us all get along. That, and the sound of surrender coming from the Democratic Party.

And if you need an extra boost, McCain, get John Howard supporting you.

Kathryn Jean Lopez, editor of National Review Online, writes a weekly column of conservative political and social commentary for Newspaper Enterprise Association.

Be the first to read Kathryn Jean Lopez's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

17th Mar 2008, 07:55
Tinpis, you are pulling our leg I hope ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Jean_Lopez :rolleyes:

17th Mar 2008, 12:31
What is your problem Grumpy?
On the one hand we have Binos and on the other we have Kathyrn, so now we have balance!

17th Mar 2008, 14:38
On the one hand we have Binos and on the other we have Kathyrn, so now we have balance!

Balance, you have got to be joking. At least I know Binos is not a religious zealot for one thing. Jesus parabellum, read some of the links on the wiki site and if you still think that Binos and this person are in balance then I am sorry mate but you are indeed a sad case :rolleyes:

17th Mar 2008, 16:02
Sorry, Grumpy, I don't see your point either.

The fact that her views come from her religious beliefs is neither here nor there. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, and Ms Lopez appears to be peddling hers to a like-minded audience who know what to expect.

Indeed they probably go there to feel comforted by it, much as those who visit the Star or the Socialist Weekly or the Gay Times or whatever expect to get a sympathetic hearing. I have no problems with that, and I don't think anybody else should either. Opposing views are the lifeblood of healthy debate.

I expect some are thinking what is the difference between her and Janet? I'll let them think about it for a while.

17th Mar 2008, 16:11
No worry Binos, if you think your views (which you espouse on here) and hers are a balance (which was the question parrabellum asked) so be it. I couldn't actually give a fcuk either way.

17th Mar 2008, 16:19
Well put, Binos.:ok:

Sincerely held opinions and views well-stated should be received with respect, not ridicule. If you disagree with them, make your case and expect the same level of respect. It's what civil discourse is all about.

Capt. Grumpy's brand of debate falls outside the boundary.

17th Mar 2008, 17:13
Capt G, did you have a good day on that $1.50 wine you told me about (which wasn't on sale here btw)?

It is fairly clear that parabellum wasn't suggesting my views and Ms Lopez's were harmonious in nature, rather that I had been nominated as the designated extreme lefty to balance her views.

While I don't see that as being the case, people will make up their own minds about our relative positions on the spectrum. It really doesn't matter in the end as long as we are true to our own beliefs. To me, that includes an imperative that both sides of the argument are at least considered. What happens after that is up to us as individuals.

17th Mar 2008, 23:50
Yup, that is closer Binos. My remark was partially tongue in cheek as well. I was only referring to your view of JWH and to Ms Lopez view of same, not the broader political debate.

18th Mar 2008, 02:11
Actually Binos, the wine was quite expensive ($3 a bottle) as the cartons were for 6 bottles. Don't know why I thought they were the normal 12. Weren't a bad drop though.

As I have been chastised by one of our all knowing "friends" from the land of the "free and the brave" I will retreat back to my corner from whence I came only emerging when my membership of the John Birch Society is finalized. :oh:

18th Mar 2008, 06:27
Binos, I am unsure as to why you even read Janets articles, you know what she is going to write from the start, I gave up on her years ago, though having said that I did skip through the link, and it was what I expected. Some people buy it though, and that is a scary thing.

I just returned from 4 weeks in the "Land of the free", had a wonderful time BTW, so very pleased I heard nothing of Kim Il John whilst I was over there.

18th Mar 2008, 12:33
Fliegenmong, despite what the assembled masses here think about me, I am always open to new ideas. I've stated many times that just because a viewpoint comes from a conservative columnist doesn't mean it is without merit. I've digeseted Janet's columns regularly. I rarely agree with them but I respect her views. The column I quoted was an appalling aberration, and a disgrace to journalism.

I also don't believe the political process is well served unless there are articulate voices from both sides who are interested in the welfare of the country rather than their own vested interests.

Now that probably marks me in the eyes of some as living with the fairies at the bottom of the garden, but in my time on earth I've never come across a problem that is usefully solved by one side ramming their views down the throats of others as though there can be no other way.

Oddly enough, I find few people who think the same way as I do in this regard. Most people are quite happy to think their way is the only way. I find this unpalatable and wonder whether there is a solution. If there is, I can't see it.

Those who consider me a Howard hater would be close to the mark, but four, six, eight, ten years ago that was not the case. I don't despise him for the side of politics he inhabits, indeed I think there are some fine minds in the Liberal party (the Nationals I'm not so sure about), and I repeat my belief that a bipartisan approach to government would be a welcome change.

No, I despise him for what he became, or more to the point what he didn't become, which was someone who could adapt to a changing world. His refusal to hand over power to somebody who could possibly win an election was a classic example of megalomania, and an equally classic example of why the Yanks have got it right in limiting any President to two terms.

19th Mar 2008, 00:00
BINOS, very good reply mate, and you are correct, I have never seen a problem solved by one side ramming their idea down the other sides throat either, but I still see it happening. Yes there was a time when I also was not a howard hater (I just can't recall when:{) Ha ha. Term limits as in the US is a good idea, but then again I believe non compulsory voting is a good idea as well. (I know you can throw the vote when they give you the paper, but you know what I am geting at)

19th Mar 2008, 01:29
requesting traffic for a very slight thread deviation......

Did anyone catch the address to the national press club yesterday by Dr 10 percentile? A very detailed and paced delivery that was sans reference to any written notes, for well over 30 - 40 minutes. I can't remember too many others before him at the podium recently, being that good on their feet.

Geez if he starts making sense soon, he might catch the inflation bug and pop into the teenage numbers.

.....clear of political storms and returning back to the thread....

Flying Binghi
19th Mar 2008, 02:28

Looks like some of the Liberals wandered off the 'political thread' of Doc10% and had a meal elsewhere...

reason - "we had the future and the vision thing in the party room" :hmm: