Pages

Google+ Followers

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Who really runs Australia? (hint, Rupert Murdoch) - The AIM Network

Who really runs Australia? (hint, Rupert Murdoch) - The AIM Network



Who really runs Australia? (hint, Rupert Murdoch)

















This proclamation (above) from Rupert Murdoch was issued on the 10th of February.


The columnists at The Australian knew exactly what that meant. This tiny screen grab (below) from The Australian was posted 12th of February.


the australian



Thursday, January 29, 2015

Rupert’s fix won’t help his ailing Aussie subsidiary –

Rupert’s fix won’t help his ailing Aussie subsidiary –

Rupert’s fix won’t help his ailing Aussie subsidiary









Dumping Peta Credlin won’t fix the problems of the Abbott
government - and would simply reinforce the perception that the Abbott
government is run by News Corp.









Never one to let a News Corp subsidiary drift, Rupert
Murdoch plainly has strong views on the performance of senior executives
of his troubled Australian project, the Abbott government. A joint
venture with the Liberal Party, the Abbott government has performed well
below forecasts since its launch in September 2013 and Murdoch, kept
closely informed by his Australian staff, wants new blood brought in, a
view he has expressed first in private and, evidently disgruntled that
his JV partner is ignoring his views, now in public …



One could go on in such terms. Except that by demanding he
dismiss his chief of staff, Murdoch has placed Abbott in a no-win
situation, in which Abbott can’t let Peta Credlin go without appearing
to demonstrate that his government is indeed just another subsidiary of
the Murdoch empire, with executives hired and fired at the whim of the
executive chairman. On the other hand, if one were inclined to Byzantine
plotting, Abbott can’t retain Credlin without manifestly defying the
will of the man whose papers campaigned so aggressively for him,
creating the pretext for News Corp to move to openly backing Julie
Bishop, on whom Murdoch bestowed his blessing on the weekend.



It’s all as if Murdoch had decided to play the role of
efficiency expert and, having run the ruler over the Prime Minister’s
Office, had drawn up a list of underperformers who needed to be
removed — first Jane McMillan, Abbott’s communications director, who
according to the Financial Review today was removed after a
private demand by Murdoch late last year, and now Peta Credlin, targeted
in the most public and humiliating manner, via the very “electronic
graffiti” of which Abbott had been so dismissive earlier in the week.



Alas, if only Rupert had been so interested in the
performance of his own executives while they were overseeing
industrial-scale phone hacking and bribery in the UK.



And, by the way, what do McMillan and Credlin have in
common, apart from their gender? McMillan was media adviser for Helen
Coonan, under Credlin as her chief of staff, when Coonan was
communications minister in the Howard government. It was Credlin, with
McMillan among her staff, who oversaw the successful passage of media
ownership reforms in 2006. Those reforms were a huge win for the TV
networks and particularly James Packer, who sold Nine to foreign private
equity virtually the moment the bill was carried in the Senate. They
were not a win of any kind for News Ltd, as it then was — all News got
was a commitment to “use it or lose it” anti-siphoning rules, while it
lost the crucial battle to keep the ban on free-to-air TV
multichannelling.



Perhaps there are some long memories at News Corp.


Credlin, Credlin, Credlin … how did a chief of staff ever
get to be a trending topic on the electronic graffiti and the dominant
political topic in the country? She’s become the target for ever more
bizarre complaints and demands. She’s too controlling and Abbott relies
too much on her was the complaint for most of 2014, except now she’s not
controlling enough because she failed to stop Abbott from
inflicting the Prince Philip disaster on himself (and funny how that
“have it both ways” thing crops up when women are being criticised).
Although she has barely said a word publicly as chief of staff, there
are now calls for her head because she’s become too high profile — the
ultimate in the media getting to play judge, jury and executioner. Most
ridiculous of all is the argument, ventured by News Corp attack shih tzu
Miranda Devine, that Credlin needs to be dispatched as a kind of ritual
sacrifice to demonstrate Abbott’s good faith to his colleagues,
bringing to mind nothing so much as the Beyond The Fringe sketch in which a WW II officer is told to make a “futile gesture” to “raise the whole tone of the war.”



That the PMO — like any PMO — shares responsibility for the government’s failures is naturally undeniable. But as Crikey noted in December,
a close look at the government’s failings shows that it is ministers
who are chiefly responsible. If Credlin should go, surely Joe Hockey
should go for a long series of gaffes that derailed the selling of the
budget; Peter Dutton should go — well, he sort of has already — for
miserably failing to sell a Medicare co-payment. Christopher Pyne should
go for botching the higher education reform package. But then, that
would involve ministers actually taking some responsibility for their
own portfolios.



And most of all there’s Tony Abbott himself. As even News
Corp commentators are increasingly saying, Abbott isn’t up to the job of
prime minister and shows no signs of growing into it. How many more
times will Abbott make a disastrous “captain’s pick” and promise to
consult more? For all their faults, Kevin Rudd led Australia safely
through the financial crisis, and Julia Gillard made a legislative
success out of minority government and managed the unprecedented feat of
landing a mining investment boom without an inflationary explosion. And
they did so in the face of remorseless, bitter hatred from Murdoch and
his spear carriers. Abbott has had virtually a free hand to do what he
likes with the support of the dominant media company in the country, and
he has constantly stumbled.



The problem isn’t in the PMO, it’s in the head of Tony
Abbott, and in the heads of lazy, inept ministers who have failed to do
the basics in their own portfolios. Ceremonially executing staffers
isn’t going to change that, no matter what ukazes are issued from
Murdoch’s One Madison penthouse in New York.


Saturday, January 17, 2015

Any resemblance to responsible factual reporting is purely coincidental - The AIM Network

Any resemblance to responsible factual reporting is purely coincidental - The AIM Network



Any resemblance to responsible factual reporting is purely coincidental














I am wondering how Andrew Bolt is feeling with the release of a
trio of new studies in two days which confirm how bad the earth’s fever
is.



In November 2013 Bolt wrote an article titled “Fighting the global warming religion”.


He stated that “Atmospheric temperatures have remained flat for at least 15 years.”


pears-graph-1


The following graph shows the tricks used by deniers like Bolt who pick their data to suit their argument.


pears-graph-3


Aside from the usual tactics of choosing a very hot year as your
starting point, and using a short time period rather than observing long
term trends, a report from NASA
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
confirmed that 2014 was the hottest year ever since reliable records
started being kept in 1880—and the results weren’t even close.



tmean_aus_0112_28616


Average global surface temperature worldwide was 14.58º C—surpassing
previous records set in 2005 and 2007—and making 2014 1.1º C hotter than
the average for the entire 20th century. And before you say 1.1º C
doesn’t seem like much, think about whether you’d prefer to run a fever
of 38º or 40º. The planet is every bit as sensitive to small variations
as you are.



Bolt also says “there has been an unexpected pause in warming of
the atmosphere, with the IPCC blaming the deep ocean for hiding the
missing heat where it can’t easily be found.  We’ve seen about 0.85
degrees of warming over the past 130 years (which hasn’t seemed to hurt,
I think).  That warming slowed dramatically over the past 15 years – to
just 0.05 a decade, or virtually zero
.”



sst_aus_0112_25801


According to the journal Science,
marine life forms are growing sicker, with a “major extinction event” a
very real possibility. All through the oceans, the signs of ecosystem
breakdown are evident: the death of coral reefs, the collapse of fish
stocks, the migration of species from waters that have grown too warm
for them to the patches that remain cool enough.



On sea level rises, Bolt says “so far we’ve probably had just
19cms in 110 years. Turns out the median sea level rises tipped under
the four IPCC scenarios for 2100 are between just 26cms and 30cms, with a
very upper limit of 82cms under the most alarming scenario.”



A study in Nature
looked at sea level rise in both the periods from 1901 to 1990 and from
1993 to 2010. It found that sea levels had risen more slowly than
believed in the 90 years that followed 1900, and much faster in the 17
years from 1993 to 2010—close to three times as fast per year from 1.2
(+/- 0.2) mm/year to 3.0 (+/-0.7) mm/year.



Whilst this may not seem like a lot, a single centimetre of water
globally is a lot of water. (in non-metric terms a single inch of water
spread around all of the planet’s oceans and seas represents two
quadrillion gallons of water.)  The recent faster rate of rising may
also affect predictions for the future.



Bolt also disputes the warning that a rapidly warming climate could affect the quality and quantity of available food.


“Sheer alarmism. Fact is that extra carbon dioxide means more
plant food, and moderate warming means more rain overall. That, plus
advances in gene technology and agricultural practices, have lead to
record global harvests of food crops.



That’s the trouble when you get your scientific information from the
Heartland Institute’s favourite ex-TV weatherman, Andrew Watts.  Deniers
spend a lot of money to cherrypick data, quote it out of context, and
produce misleading graphics.  Whilst production might be higher in gross
tonnage, he ignores demand and yield.



The IPCC
report published last year said that the rate of increase in crop
yields is slowing – especially in wheat – raising doubts as to whether
food production will keep up with the demand of a growing population.



Wheat is the first big staple crop to be affected by climate change,
because it is sensitive to heat and is grown around the world, from
Pakistan to Russia to Canada. Projections suggest that wheat yields
could drop 2% a decade.



The report explored a range of scenarios involving a temperature rise
of two degrees or more that saw dramatic declines in production in the
coming decades. Declines in crop yields will register first in drier and
warmer parts of the world but as temperatures rise two, three or four
degrees, they will affect everyone.



In the more extreme scenarios, heat and water stress could reduce yields by 25% between 2030 and 2049.


The report acknowledged that there were a few isolated areas where a
longer growing season had been good for farming. But it played down the
idea that there may be advantages to climate change as far as food
production is concerned.



Overall, the report said, “Negative impacts of climate change on crop
yields have been more common than positive impacts.” Scientists and
campaigners pointed to the finding as a defining feature of the report.



Other food sources are also under threat. Fish catches in some areas
of the tropics are projected to fall by between 40% and 60%, according
to the report.



The report also connected climate change to rising food prices and
political instability, for instance the riots in Asia and Africa after
food price shocks in 2008.



Bolt’s articles should come with a disclaimer: “Any resemblance to responsible factual reporting is purely coincidental.”



Any resemblance to responsible factual reporting is purely coincidental - The AIM Network

Any resemblance to responsible factual reporting is purely coincidental - The AIM Network



Any resemblance to responsible factual reporting is purely coincidental














I am wondering how Andrew Bolt is feeling with the release of a
trio of new studies in two days which confirm how bad the earth’s fever
is.



In November 2013 Bolt wrote an article titled “Fighting the global warming religion”.


He stated that “Atmospheric temperatures have remained flat for at least 15 years.”


pears-graph-1


The following graph shows the tricks used by deniers like Bolt who pick their data to suit their argument.


pears-graph-3


Aside from the usual tactics of choosing a very hot year as your
starting point, and using a short time period rather than observing long
term trends, a report from NASA
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
confirmed that 2014 was the hottest year ever since reliable records
started being kept in 1880—and the results weren’t even close.



tmean_aus_0112_28616


Average global surface temperature worldwide was 14.58º C—surpassing
previous records set in 2005 and 2007—and making 2014 1.1º C hotter than
the average for the entire 20th century. And before you say 1.1º C
doesn’t seem like much, think about whether you’d prefer to run a fever
of 38º or 40º. The planet is every bit as sensitive to small variations
as you are.



Bolt also says “there has been an unexpected pause in warming of
the atmosphere, with the IPCC blaming the deep ocean for hiding the
missing heat where it can’t easily be found.  We’ve seen about 0.85
degrees of warming over the past 130 years (which hasn’t seemed to hurt,
I think).  That warming slowed dramatically over the past 15 years – to
just 0.05 a decade, or virtually zero
.”



sst_aus_0112_25801


According to the journal Science,
marine life forms are growing sicker, with a “major extinction event” a
very real possibility. All through the oceans, the signs of ecosystem
breakdown are evident: the death of coral reefs, the collapse of fish
stocks, the migration of species from waters that have grown too warm
for them to the patches that remain cool enough.



On sea level rises, Bolt says “so far we’ve probably had just
19cms in 110 years. Turns out the median sea level rises tipped under
the four IPCC scenarios for 2100 are between just 26cms and 30cms, with a
very upper limit of 82cms under the most alarming scenario.”



A study in Nature
looked at sea level rise in both the periods from 1901 to 1990 and from
1993 to 2010. It found that sea levels had risen more slowly than
believed in the 90 years that followed 1900, and much faster in the 17
years from 1993 to 2010—close to three times as fast per year from 1.2
(+/- 0.2) mm/year to 3.0 (+/-0.7) mm/year.



Whilst this may not seem like a lot, a single centimetre of water
globally is a lot of water. (in non-metric terms a single inch of water
spread around all of the planet’s oceans and seas represents two
quadrillion gallons of water.)  The recent faster rate of rising may
also affect predictions for the future.



Bolt also disputes the warning that a rapidly warming climate could affect the quality and quantity of available food.


“Sheer alarmism. Fact is that extra carbon dioxide means more
plant food, and moderate warming means more rain overall. That, plus
advances in gene technology and agricultural practices, have lead to
record global harvests of food crops.



That’s the trouble when you get your scientific information from the
Heartland Institute’s favourite ex-TV weatherman, Andrew Watts.  Deniers
spend a lot of money to cherrypick data, quote it out of context, and
produce misleading graphics.  Whilst production might be higher in gross
tonnage, he ignores demand and yield.



The IPCC
report published last year said that the rate of increase in crop
yields is slowing – especially in wheat – raising doubts as to whether
food production will keep up with the demand of a growing population.



Wheat is the first big staple crop to be affected by climate change,
because it is sensitive to heat and is grown around the world, from
Pakistan to Russia to Canada. Projections suggest that wheat yields
could drop 2% a decade.



The report explored a range of scenarios involving a temperature rise
of two degrees or more that saw dramatic declines in production in the
coming decades. Declines in crop yields will register first in drier and
warmer parts of the world but as temperatures rise two, three or four
degrees, they will affect everyone.



In the more extreme scenarios, heat and water stress could reduce yields by 25% between 2030 and 2049.


The report acknowledged that there were a few isolated areas where a
longer growing season had been good for farming. But it played down the
idea that there may be advantages to climate change as far as food
production is concerned.



Overall, the report said, “Negative impacts of climate change on crop
yields have been more common than positive impacts.” Scientists and
campaigners pointed to the finding as a defining feature of the report.



Other food sources are also under threat. Fish catches in some areas
of the tropics are projected to fall by between 40% and 60%, according
to the report.



The report also connected climate change to rising food prices and
political instability, for instance the riots in Asia and Africa after
food price shocks in 2008.



Bolt’s articles should come with a disclaimer: “Any resemblance to responsible factual reporting is purely coincidental.”



Wednesday, January 14, 2015

The Murdoch mafia unwinds

The Murdoch mafia unwinds

427 12





Fallout from Murdoch's "moslem" comments may pale into
insignificance as his media empire faces serious criminal
investigations on two continents, writes Rodney E. Lever.




Carl Bernstein, one of the two reporters on the Washington Post who caused Richard Nixon to resign as US President after having being caught in criminal activity, has written of Rupert Murdoch:



'The British hacking scandal is the ultimate expression of
Murdoch-culture run amok: corruption in the Fourth Estate as dangerous
to democracy as the worst excesses of heads of state.'





Andrew Edis QC, prosecutor in cases involving eight victims of phone News Corporation phone hacking, observed that now defunct News of the World was so "utterly corrupted" that it



"... became, at the highest level, a thoroughly criminal enterprise."




The Murdoch management might be subject to even more serious fall out after investigations
by the U.S. Department of Justice into possible offences under laws
that prohibit the payment of bribes to foreign officials. Murdoch could
be forced to sell his TV network holdings in America.




Volumes of evidence, tens of thousands of pages of internal memos,
have been collected to strengthen prosecutions connected with phone
hacking and interference in murder investigations and the bribery of
police and others.






The investigations by the British police force were badly damaged by some of their most senior officers, who accepted gifts and free holidays from Murdoch executives. They then tried to cover up some of the criminal activities of the Murdoch papers.



For at least another year, the company will be subject to a
continuing series of  revelations as the new investigation team,
Operation Weeting, sorts through thousands of pages of evidence of the
company's corrupt practices.




The Murdoch saga has begun a whole new chapter in its history. But
panic in the family has reached a point where a professional counsellor
has been hired to keep order at family meetings.




The family meetings are chaotic, with everyone blaming everyone else. James Murdoch is a particular target,
unable to offer rational explanations on matters that were his personal
responsibility during the time he was in total charge of the British
operations.






All the family members became wealthy as a result of their holdings
in the company's principal shares and their own personal investments in
other enterprises. They cannot agree on what to do and they have their
own personal business lives to consider. 




Central to everything else at the moment is the BSkyB
television network in Britain, the prize that James Murdoch wants to
own. He has been a director of the company, of which News Corporation is
the main shareholder.




Their dearest wish at the moment is to be allowed to take over the
entire network, which would make it the most profitable enterprise in
the whole of the Murdoch empire. It is the key to the future existence
of Murdoch's British operations.




BSkyB was the reason Rupert Murdoch switched in 2010 from the Tony
Blair-Gordon Brown Labor Party to the Conservative-Liberal Democrat
coalition government of David Cameron, with an understanding that
Cameron would smooth the way for a full Murdoch takeover.






Murdoch made the change because a large element of the Labor Party had been against his BSkyB takeover, despite the alleged promises of then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.



The whole scheme came unstuck when the first phone hacking cases were exposed, connecting Murdoch's News of the World, and the emerging scandal blew his BSkyB hopes to pieces.



With Labor now leading most polls
in advance of this year's British election, the loss of the BSkyB
option and a decision that the criminal activities behind his newspapers
made him unfit to own such a major TV service would be the greatest disaster of Murdoch's career and see his entire empire collapse.




The interesting thing about Nick Davies’ Hack Attack account
of how Rupert Murdoch's business empire became embroiled in crime and
corruption is that he has effectively declared it a criminal enterprise,
and no Murdoch has ever challenged him or his accusations.






The Murdoch company even ensnared senior officers of Scotland Yard.
Certain police officers were discharged and a new squad of carefully
selected detectives began a new investigation under Operation Weeting.




From there, it went to a parliamentary inquiry; and then to Lord Justice Brian Leveson for
a televised inquisition shown around the world; and then to law
courts for a series of largely unsatisfactory trials — unsatisfactory
because it seemed to observers that the real criminals were not in the
dock.




We can only hope that justice will one day be done.



The Leveson Inquiry has a website covering all aspects of the Murdoch activities. You can follow Rodney on Twitter @RodneyELever.

Monday, January 12, 2015

There Are Two Sorts Of People In The World, Those Who Divide People Into Categories And Those Who Don't! - The AIM Network

There Are Two Sorts Of People In The World, Those Who Divide People Into Categories And Those Who Don't! - The AIM Network





There Are Two Sorts Of People In The World, Those Who Divide People Into Categories And Those Who Don’t!














Now I seem to remember that one of the reasons that John Howard
refused to apologise to the stolen generation was that “we” weren’t
personally responsible. Afterl all, none of “us” ever stole children so
how could “we” apologise for something we didn’t do. And I seem to
remember that the Murdoch Media was fairly supportive of this position.



But now I find that Mr. Murdoch embraces the notion of collective
responsibility. If you’re a member of a particular group, then you’re
responsible for the actions of all members of that group.



It’s an interesting concept.


Should perhaps all energy companies be fined for the actions of Enron?


Or all newspaper journalists be jailed for the phone hacking in Britain?


Of course, it’s be ridiculous to jail all journalists. I think just the ones who work for Murdoch  would probably be enough.


But now we’ve established the notion of group responsibility. Here is
my quick list of people who should apologise on behalf of their group:



  1. All police should apologise for the death in Ferguson.
  2. All bank employees should apologise for the GFC.
  3. All drivers should apologise for the car that cut me off the other day.
  4. All Dutch immigrants should apologise for Andrew Bolt.
  5. All teenagers should apologise for the popularity of “One Direction”.
  6. Alll Australians should apologise for the election of the Abbott government.

Ok, it’s only a quick list, and maybe an apology isn’t enough. Maybe
like Rupert says until the people who are part of the group “recognise
and destroy”…



Oooh, that sounds a bit nasty and threatening when put in another
context. Gee, I certainly don’t want to suggest that any member of that
group should “recognise and destroy” someone else in the group.



I mean, people reading this blog might get the wrong idea about what I
mean and it would sound like I were inciting hatred and violence.



Lucky Rupert’s made himself a lot clearer about what he means by
“recognise and destroy” and that the words won’t encourage such things!