Like the recent goading of Craig Thomson, the hounding of Lindy Chamberlain seems a medieval witch-hunt now. That she left a barbecue to slit her baby’s throat in a station wagon and came back smiling to the barbecue minutes later was believed by millions of Australians for decades though she had no conceivable motive to do it, and she denied she had done it even after she was offered twenty years less in the slammer if she said she had done it. Preferring prison to a lie, she stuck with her story. Because it was true.
No conceivable motive. No previous pattern of suspicious behaviour. She had not hurt or threatened her other children, and when she had a subsequent baby it was not snatched from her breast by wary pre-emptive authorities lest she murder it also. They knew she could be trusted; and they also knew she was guilty of murder, and gave her twenty years for it; of course they did; of course they did. Discuss.
It was just that some Australians thought she looked like a cold unrepentant murderous bitch, and she was like me a cradle Seventh Day Adventist, and we were crazy people, a cult, an Abrahamic child-sacrificing desert cult, and the Murdoch press liked the money it made from the big lies it told (‘Azaria’ meant ‘sacrifice in the wilderness’; Azaria was mentally disabled; her brother did it; Michael was called on by God to arrange it; and so on), and from the months and years of the ‘developments’ in the ‘ongoing investigations’ of what was, at its heart, a non-story: a child attacked by a savage animal, a savage dog, a pit-bull terrier story, once removed.
No conceivable motive. No conceivable motive whatsoever. And a dog-like creature glimpsed in the dark.
And there was no conceivable motive, either, with Craig. That he would arrange three fucks he didn’t turn up for, a psychological impossibility, and pay for these non-events with a union credit card whose money-trail would destroy his political aspirations, goes beyond all credibility. Andyet it was believed.
And millions of Australians believed it, and like tens of thousands of the witch-hunters of Lindy they still do. Though he had no motive to do it and no previous record of reckless womanising or whoring, or even reckless spending, and there were alibis for three of the nights, they believed it anyway; some, like Tony Abbott, so thoroughly that he called his vote ‘tainted’ and scarpered from the chamber lest he see it used.
Why is this? Why does it happen? Is there a persecution-gland, a scapegoat-reflex in humans, as there is without doubt a god-worship reflex? Could be.
What is most worrying is the expunging of all analysis of the concept of motive, the willed forgetting, as it were, of all of the investigative deductions of Rumpole, Poirot, Miss Marples and Holmes. Why would Craig do it? Why would he choose Elena, of all people, to do it with? Why would he risk all for an hour or two with that drab soggy Kiwi? Why?
Motive used to be a big part of detective stories. But in the Murdoch Age, by a wave of the wand, it is no longer required. Why would Strauss-Kahn risk the French Presidency by raping a big strapping black girl twice his size in the mouth, a physical impossibility? No motive; he did it, that’s all; he’s a Socialist; a Leftist; a suitable case for Murdochist bogey-making; he found a way to do it; they’re Socialists, they’re like that. Of course they are.
Of course they are.
It’s as mindless as bear-baiting or bull-fighting or eating Christ on Sundays, but Murdoch likes to encourage it, he likes his readership stupid and this is a way to ensure they stay that way.
It’s worrying that Murdoch tries this nonsense on. But it’s even more worrying that fourteen million Australians go along with forgeries as dumb as this one, that a man hires a whore and then flies to Perth to avoid her caresses and pays her eight hundred dollars for her absence with a union card that will end his career.
Have we lost all capacity for thinking connectedly? Are we so distracted we accept any rubbish that is yelled at us with confidence by Paul Murray or Bill O’Reilly or Andrew Bolt?
Or Tony Abbott?
Looks like it.
And it’s a worry.
Name:
The answer is yes. An insight that enabled the odious Jackson to attract their attention with the promise of a daily serving of ordure and rotting entrails. Thus gorged and coated with offal they washed it all down last night with a fine port as Jackson was accepted, temporarily at least, by those already made fat and oleaginous by exploiting the labour of workers. Welcome to the HR Nicholls society Jackson. You’ve made it at last.
Well said, Bob. At times I can’t understand how the Aussie mind works, not in the case of Azaria or Thomson, and where in the world would a leader of a political party run out of parliament, how silly can you get…he’s not a kid in sandpit, or is he…
The country is doing well, and people bicker about trivia…
Helvi you must clearly work in mining if you believe we are ‘doing well’. Go for a walk amongst retail shops, or the raft of closures occurring.
Sorry, Verily, but I don’t buy much these days,I’m into saving for the day day, you never know the Liberals might get into power…
Not helping the economy then are we Helvi…
Verily, as I said before I frequent markets and shops for pre-loved stuff…
When I get tired of my second-hand Armani and Gucci, I give it to Smith Family, clean and spotless, I’m being charitable…
Most of my books these days come pre-read…not buying Abbott’s, even it’s only a dollar
So, when you go for a walk, Verily, all you see is doom and gloom. Where is this? Where I live, Brunswick,small businesses are opening everywhere, hard to keep up with them. Non-stop changing landscape. And what is this utopia you are hinting at; your perfect retail sector world? Which party will best achieve that model? And how? What are your views on consumerism and the use of resources on this planet? Give us some insight.
Sydney Frank. Ol Sydney town. Its not all gloom and doom, but nor is it enough to put a ‘spring in my step’ like Swanny’s and Helvi’s.
I am not sure either party can prompt a rousing from the malaise, but unnecessary taxes that will not achieve their purported intention (reduction of C02) won’t help. Programs aimed a supporting local producers, shopkeeps and ventures would be a good start.
Consumerism isn’t a bad thing as per se – within reason of course. Why shouldn’t individuals who work hard and aspire be allowed to reward themselves or their loved ones? Don’t tell me you’re one of these Brunswick Commies we keep hearing about it up here in the big smoke. Longing for the good ol days of redistribution. I’m sure you got half a mongrel just thinking of the actual consequences of the carbon (dioxide) tax.
Enlighten us Frank, what is your view of consumption and the planet.
Your right, Verily, the carbon tax doesn’t go anywhere near enough in tackling climate change. But it is a starter, even if it hasn’t started yet. So I gather you’re not an Abbot supporter. You don’t think it will achieve its objectives. He thinks it will destroy the economy. Good to see you not supporting him. Consumerism? When I go to the supermarket and look at the lines of trolleys overflowing with items, and I look at the items and see not too many are essentials, and not too many are good for your health or a balanced diet. When I look at the packaging, and the advertising, and the magazines with their celeb info; and the cigarettes bar, and the bottleshop; I must admit I think of their cost and investment, in terms of incomes, in terms of human health; in terms of family; in terms of the planets resources, in terms of exploitation of o/s workers; in termsof human communities and dignity; and I can’t help thinking there must be a more meaningful way for human to exist beyond what is instant gratification, or ignorance, or just plain indifference. It is about human settlements and how they behave as guardians to their environments they borrow from. I’m not sure that makes me a communist, though. I will take a closer look around Brunswick. How will I identify them
I would like to ask you VN if you do not see the pumping of hundreds of billions of dollars into businesses and banks by Governments of all persuasions around the world, and then issuing bonds to pay for it, as not a tax impost on this generation or the next?
It seems to me that Private Enterprise have Governments wedged on this extend and pretend policy, because taking away the public teat from the banks (we are all Americans and Europeans now), is contemplated to lead to much more dire circumstances than the PIIGS are just a foretaste of.
I disagree with FW on retail closures, I took a walk down Chapel St not too long ago and it looks like a big tooth gapped smile, take a walk through Frankston, first signs are always on the periphery of the outer suburbs.
What do you think VN?
Allthumbs I agree completely. Gov’ts should not be propping up banks. Plain and simple.
And if they do we should expect more from them. The Australian banks are effectively guaranteed, meaning they can borrow at a cheaper rate internationally yet still refuse to pass on cuts. It is not to say we should ‘bash banks’ but we should expect reciprocity for their privileged position courtesy of tax payer dollars. Gov’t should not be pumping money into ‘stimulus’ packages that achieve nothing regardless (pink batts, cash for clunkers, BER). Look to Sweden and how they sparked their recovery – no stimulus, rather tax cuts to promote risk and business.
Current options are best described as the “best of the worst”.
Any investment by government should entitle it to an equity position that provides a social dividend back to the community that ultimately is acting as underwriter.
I am all for bashing banks, its the trade off for bashing the working class, but it is a huge “redistribution” that has occurred. The Conventional Wisdom though is that it is seen as saving the world Economy for the many whereas in fact it is for the few, and the many should count themselves lucky to be along for the ride.
We will regulate the working class into submission, supervise them, control them, no matter how hard they work there will be a set limit to what they willbe rewarded, because that lends itself to the good of all. But we see regulation for Private Capital as a crime against liberty, against nature,it is envy, as if envy is not one of the driving forces of Capitalism, it is a synonym for competition. It is this disparity that puzzles me.
Tiny Dancer just libelled Craig, and his exile is upgraded to a billion years.
You can’t compare Sydney with Melbourne? Melbourne with Madrid?
I found “some” balls but they are not comparable. Dilemma.
Two billion years.
To liken the plight of Lindy Chamberlain to Thom(p)son is a stretch Bob (again your defence of this bloke is blinding) – the DSK comparison is slightly more appropriate perhaps. As you well know the governments of the day spent $20m plus on QCs and the like pursuing her, hounding her and her family. This was not Murdoch’s doing. Nor has such thing happened with Thom(p)son. What gov’t funds have been used to pursue Thom(p)son, save the legitimate FWA enquiry?
Not only that but Lindy vocally, and constantly maintained her innocence. Why did it take so long for Thom(p)son to speak? Why? An innocent man would protest his position from the outset, not bide his time and make an emotionally charged plea in the House riddled with accusations and false truths.
And for the record it was not just Murdoch employed journalists who hounded her, and her family was it? In fact very few believed her all along. You were amongst the clear minority if you did so alongside Alan Jones, Malcolm Brown and Kevin Hitchcock (although he was a later convert, believing they were guilty prior to his documentary). The media swung from guilty to innocent throughout as the drama unfolded from one enquiry to the next. A natural inclination of all newspapers in the country as a result of trying to boost sales. In fact the NT gov’t cleverly and shrewdly used the media to justify their relentless pursuit.
As an aside it was good to hear Lindy thank the Aboriginal people for their support this morning – the Pitjantjatjara have indicated all along their support for the Chamberlain’s story.
Craig always said he was innocent, for years on end.
What are you talking about?
Why did he take so long to confront the allegations in the Parliament?
You have also ignored the analogy with native title, so I shall simply assume it is on the money as they say.
He was told to shut up about it by the party tacticians. They felt, correctly, that if he spoke about it Abbott and Pyne would try — as they did — to disqualify his vote, replace the government, and call an election.
All clear now?
As mud. If he was innocent all along why would they genuiunely fear any of those
prepercussions occurring? As they say, the truth will set you free…
Surely the failure to deny the allegations only served to exacerbate the entire situation did it not?
I ask you again Bob for a prediction, when will the ALP welcome him back into its loving bosom? Surely if everyone within the ALP believed Thom(p)son was innoncent all along surely they would be welcoming him back now as a triumphant hero. Why does he still reside with the grubs Oakeshott and Windsor on the cross benches?
Because the Fair Work Australia report had not yet come down. Its chief witness was Craig’s enemy, Jackson, a Liberal voter, and one of its chief judges was her lover, Lawler, an Abbott appointee and buddy.
How could they be sure the truth would come out of that mix?
And it didn’t, of course.
All clear now?
Once again your explanations have muddied the water. Surely you are not suggesting that an individual the subject of a report cannot declare they are innocent?
Again I ask the question – when will he be welcomed back to the ALP like Caesar returning to Rome?
He was asked repeatedly if he did and he said repeatedly he didn’t. For years and years. What are you talking about?
I don’t know if they’ll take him back. The are political arguments both ways.
But if he is innocent what is the argument against taking him back?
Comparing Craig Thomson to Lindy Chamberlain is as inappropriate as Rene Rifkin comparing himself to Nelson Mandela.
I would be surprised to hear of any crime that Craig has committed. Do you know of one?
Mandela, on the other hand, was a convicted terrorist under the laws then prevailing in his native country.
And John Howard — and you, I imagine — was urging that he be hanged.
Apologised for that yet, have you?
Or do you still believe it?
What a stupid assumption!
Did you sign a petition asking he be released, ever?
Did you write a letter, ever, repudiating Howard’s desire that he be hanged?
It isn’t inappropriate, one could argue it is partisan and spot on.
In some ways, Murdoch could claim the same.
We are all more sinned against than sinning.
Yet not a soul is innocent.
Everyone must stand falsely accused at some point.
I guess a lot could be said along the lines of Freud & falsely accusing ourselves, or indeed convicting one’s self and subjecting ourselves to punishments of sorts.
The bloke shot in centrelink though, or the guy shot in Parramatta shops, the parents who left their child in the back seat of the wrong car on a hot day, The PM who left their kid at the pub.
Spare a thought for the low life scumbag animals, the dregs, the slime, the crims who sit and rot and rape and get raped in little concrete rooms, that smell of drugs in sweat on sheets, of shit, and piss and fear and remember the bastards deserve every second of it.
“You must understand, sir, that a person is either with this court or he must be counted against it, there be no road between. This is a sharp time, now, a precise time—we live no longer in the dusky afternoon when evil mixed itself with good and befuddled the world. Now, by God’s grace, the shining sun is up, and them that fear not light will surely praise it.”
The Crucible, Arthur Miller.
A dingo took my sheep, Timothy No.6 (Dad ate the previous ones. I had 168 sheep called Timothy. See Corrugated Roads). It snapped its jaws over Timothy’s head, crushed it, swung him to break his neck, then threw him over his shoulder & took off. Azaria Chamberlain suffered the same fate. Both Mr Nipper Winmatti, a high respected blacktracker, & Mrs Chamberlain told us so. I believed them. Murdoch press dismissed Nipper as a drunken boong, blacktracking as voodoo, & Mrs Chamberlain as a lyin’ bitch. What astounds me is how easily some in Australia are willing to believe Murdoch & his ilk. Lyin’ bitch remains a perennial favourite among the conservative classes to dismiss a truth. Ask Ms Gillard.
It is no longer the problem that people simply believe what they want to believe. The problem has become that they routinely assume the right to their own facts in so doing!
And you’re right Bob, Abbott is a worry! But if I was Gillard I’d be more worried about Turnbull. I think more people would probably warm to him in this era when representative politics has devolved into a cult of personality.
“Are we so distracted we accept any rubbish…” Yes. Finally caught up with Boys From The Blackstuff, a TV series from 1982. Wiki describes it as: “TV’s most complete dramatic response to the Thatcher era and as a lament to the end of a male, working class British culture.” Last episode looked at the death nd burial of a union leader, a warrior, almost an anachronism comapred to his sons bending to the will of Thatcherism and pessimism. Distracted? Neutralised.
And then flash forward to today. “The Unions Are Corrupt” “Why did you stab Kevin Rudd in the back, PM?” Distracted? Neutralised. Tony Joyce’s role? Fitting into the Scott model? The ABC? Distracted? Neutralised. Political activism was part of my University upbringing in the seventies. And why shouldn’t it have been? Weren’t we at university to both pursue and express individual thought? To question? Amongst other things to become empirical researchers? Now the universities in Melbourne are full of international students with heads down [their money keeping the institutions afloat]. The universities; this generation of thinkers; distracted? Neutralised.
We took our political beliefs out into the schools. We taught the Builders’ Labourers’ Songbook as an alternative Australian history course. Published by the BLF in the mid-seventies, it had songs about aboriginal resistance, workers in the city and the bush, Eureka and the women’s movement. For those outside Queensland, the Builders Labourers Federation was a national and powerful union deregistered permanently in 1986 for corruption by the Hawke government. The BLF were known for their green bans [saving areas of Sydney], and causes such as Aborignal Rights, anti-war campaigns and support for pensioners. The BLF? Distracted? Neutralised.
Just had a Mexican guy stay a month. Topic gets around to the drug barons. He says the US government is happy with the drugs pouring into America. A generation on drugs and consumerism do not politcial activists make. Distracted? Neutralised. My Mexican visitor scores a job selling energy door-to-door. Commissioned work. After 2 weeks hasn’t earned a cent. Turns out he has been explaining to people the devious methods behind getting people to switch companies. I get up at 6:30am and work until 8:00pm at night. I am not paid. So the Mexican and I have just started the UWUA [Unpaid Workers Union of Australia].
Anyone interested? There are millions of us out there. Start with the housewives. Then the volunteers. Then the carers. Grandparants looking after grandchildren. Then…. Neutralised? Not yet.
“a lament to the end of a male, working class British culture”.
All slightly misplaced sentiment, Frank. The British changes might have gone too far, but that culture was dead on its feet long before Thatcher. Paul Johnson, in a (left wing) New Statesman article in 1975 summed up what was the chaos of then-industrialised Britain and with inflation running at 3.5% A MONTH the IMF was later called in. Yet, as Johnson put it, “We have seen in recent years, whole new categories of workers joining in the competition for wage increases, demonstrating their militancy and smashing their fists in the community’s face…….Smug and self-assured; oblivious of any criticism, they have encouraged British industrial workers in habits and attitudes, in rules and procedures, in illusions and fantasies, which have turned the British working class into the coolies of the Western world, and Britain into a stinking bankrupt industrial slum”.
Even New Labour under Blair didn’t want to go back to that era – it couldn’t.
Unfortunately, the Thatcher changes were savage, but Britain a mere five years before was finished otherwise. In Australia, luckily, it has been ALP leaders who have had to take on unions and Bob Hawke was the leader here.
M, First, like I said, the BFTB quote was from Wiki. Second to concentrate on Thatcher doesn’t view my posting as a whole, misses the point. If you want a response to Paul Johnson’s article, here is one by K A Belzko [I haven't got time]: “Anti-unionists are most concerned with the economy. The economy is not something that any one person, or group, or country has much control over. Reading some papers from the Bank of England, it seems to me that policies are implemented but their outcomes are not predictable; many things seem to be down to luck, and down to international markets and their effects on one another which are rarely stable. The only constant in the economy is the workers and their ability to make money for their country. Therefore, the workers in my opinion are the most important part of the economy. They are human beings who need to pay their bills, feed their families and live peacefully in their communities. Thatcher destroyed the idea of communities, of a society thriving together. She sold off Britain’s assets, closing coal mines, introduced the unfair poll tax which spurred riots, unemployment reached 3 million in 1982, and not forgetting Black Monday’ the stock market crash in 1987. Her political philosophy of every man for himself’ left many people feeling isolated and bitter. That bitterness has evolved over the years and those who grew up believing her ethos have no time to think of others, just of themselves. The crumbs that fall off the table are an insult to the hard working people of Britain. Now we see the fruits of her labour: disenfranchised and disaffected people, the gap between the haves and have nots widening.
Politics is not about Labour or Tory it’s about people and what is best for the country. Those in power know that for a country to be successful, they cannot concern themselves with the little problems of people not being able to afford a place of their own, of not being paid a fair wage, of hoards of people getting blind drunk at the weekend and beating themselves up, of the environment the list is endless. These people know that we can fight and scream about these things but it will make very little difference to the wider world of economics. They are happy that we are busy concerning ourselves over these little things because they can concentrate on the economy, and of course their own pockets. This is Thatcher’s legacy. She must be so proud.”
I meant to say more in answer, but space was short. Just note that critical views on unions do not come only from ‘anti-union’ people. The BLF destroyed by Bob Hawke had swallowed Jack Munday’s green ban people and was corrupt. When reality came it was the ALP leaders who brought change. Hawke and Kelty did that and gave them time to adapt – and they did adapt, for a while. Now they face another crisis and unless they want to fail or have a Thatcher type do it (and defeating Work Choices should have been a warning to change rather than a reason to turn back the clock), with all the extra ‘change’ that entails, they condemn the unions to suicide. When unions have the working class as leaders and not ‘led’ by barristers and student politicians warehoused until they can get safe seats in parliament, they bring ‘Thatcherism’ closer even as they die off.
o “We have seen in recent years, whole new categories of CEO’s joining in the competition for salary and bonus increases, demonstrating their militancy and smashing their fists in the community’s face…….Smug and self-assured; oblivious of any criticism, they have encouraged other CEO’s worldwide in habits and attitudes, in rules and procedures, in illusions and fantasies, which have turned the working class into the coolies of the Western world, and Capitalism into a stinking bankrupt market slum”.
A one-hand clap coming your way. Very original indeed. How apt, how cutting. I am overwhelmed!
I was thinking of Iceland.
“When unions have the working class as leaders and not ‘led’ by barristers and student politicians warehoused until they can get safe seats in parliament, they bring ‘Thatcherism’ closer even as they die off.’
I couldn’t agree more, MR. But why is it that the working class need such close supervision, such close regulation, why is it that they are seen as so integral to the processes of the Economy as producers and consumers and yet simultaenously despised as a cost input to be enterprised away by either technology, or made redundant by the employment of overseas equivalents?
I think off the top of my head the current Union movement accounts for 18% of working Australians, and yet the vehemence and concentration in burying this institution given by Conservatives seems to me to be out of whack.
Well, I think the reason, in regard to your last paragraph, is that they have more influence on government, policy and conditions of work than 18 per cent.
I do not necessarily suggest that they shouldn’t, but am merely providing a reason.
Sorry for length, but it is in two parts.
Workers are a cost input. Always have been. Whilst technology cannot be stopped and never was (above 4% rather than the old 2% is considered ‘full employment’), the union movement shows by its actions how they are actually burying themselves. Qantas shows this and perhaps even the mining industry now although in mining it is more a cap on than destruction of an industry. The great president of the Barrier Industrial Council, Joe Keenan used to say ‘never kill the goose that laid the golden egg’ (Qantas?). He was right and the days of the old Accord seem to best follow this principle, however imperfectly. The modern union movement doesn’t seem to recognise this and the more it becomes a them/us clash, the more some unions will wither when the national or personal interest seems to be overridden by union action. When the ‘leadership’ loses touch with the members’ long term interests (or a major part of them) they vacate the field and resign it to the employers, scrupulous or otherwise. Tactics on EMA’s are a case in point and while space here is short, total opposition – which will fail unless they want to see no jobs for the “6,000 locals” – also opens up EMA’s on grounds of cheap labour instead of necessary labour. And the unscrupulous rush to fill the void by the hospitality, agriculture and now with even white collar workers shows the dangers. Unless an in-touch union movement allowed for obvious public sympathy by insisting that companies be held to account for training every single Australian that can be made eligible, the increasing attempts to jump on this bandwagon will only increase. But no, what do we see, but union leaders ignoring part of their membership to cater for their old ‘base’, the old and dying industrial centres which, thanks to the Gillard surrender, ignore a Button-like restructure and just throw money to multi-national companies to employ them for a bare few years more until they close up shop and move away anyway.
Unable as we are to ignore this world economy which we are stuck with, together with all its free-flow of capital and (it seems) labour, ‘conservatives’ who want to bury the union movement might wear the same ideological blinkers as those who are driving down the percentage of people who feel it necessary to be in a union. Blinkered in that most of them cannot now conceive of what goes when it is ’anything goes’ and those who are not prisoners to an ideological conservatism would be horrified when it happens and there are no groups to protect basic rights at work. However, with the union ‘leadership’ of today, backed by the ideological supporting elites who condemn aspirational workers, their ‘McMansions’, even their motor vehicles (come on down David Williamson and Don Watson), left unchecked will ensure that 18% goes lower as being in a union becomes irrelevant. Irrelevant in that they don’t need a union to live, a union cannot realistically assist them or the leadership (again) continues to lose sight of the big picture (thus the UK examples I sought to give). The USA is similar in that the white collar/government unions are so important to them that the interests of private workers are subsidiary to the white collar/government needs. Apart from the dog-eat-dog nature of the US context and the Right to Work State processes, this has reached crisis levels until unless the AFL-CIO changes tack it will destroy most private sector unions altogether.
This antipathy which is the fundament and key to the nature of the system, is still to be resolved. During the GFC there has been a slight increase in Union membership (I’m going from ABS stats) but nothing to compensate the demise in the overall membership numbers over the years, not even close.
It will be interesting as the white collars come under increasing attack as to how they will react. They are educated, and well versed in the nature of commerce and business and especially negotitation. Their two decade sabbatical from seeing themselves as workers as opposed to “management” may lend an added bitterness, along with the general squeezing of the middle class, to make them a little more strident. Moderation or partial capitulation by the Middle Class may not be an option, it’s ok to fight for what you didn’t have,and lose, but to fight for what was once yours but is now to be taken away, prompts a different response.
Did you see the +$40K reduction in median net worth for Americans reported this morning (mostly middle class)?
Yes I did see it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/fed-americans-wealth-dropped-40-percent/2012/06/11/gJQAlIsCVV_story.html.
A wonderful conversation allthumbs and Ryutin – worthy of the name- “exchange”.
An additional congratulations for eschewing the wearisome populist platitudes that normally attend such encounters.
As far as unions are concerned, we won’t miss the water until the well runs dry.
We owe them, big time for the society we have today.
Let them wither away, and watch naked capitalism roar back, whether as Workchoices revisited exhumed and phoenixed or by way of equal bargaining rights between Big Bastard Mining Inc and your own son or daughter seeking a job.
Do you feel lucky, punk?
Thank whatever idol I can muster, that I have found your blog…I have just read all of the Independent’s articles on Kathy Jackson and Craig Thomson…it makes interesting reading indeed…such a pity that news here is just like Fox in the USA…neither fair or balanced…32 years since the dingo took the child from the camp at Uluru and we haven’t learned a bloody thing..
Thx for another useful post, will check back later, have bookmarked you for now.