Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Posts tagged 'Janet Albrechtsen'

Tag Archives: Janet Albrechtsen

Janet Albrechtsen and Auntie

Janet Albrechtsen.

Janet Albrechtsen.

The Abbott government has appointed conservative commentator Janet Albrechtsen and former deputy Liberal Party leader Neil Brown to the panel overseeing appointments to the boards of the ABC and SBS.

The four-person nomination panel, which is appointed by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, presents a shortlist of recommendations to the government when vacant ABC and SBS board positions arise.

Dr Albrechtsen and Mr Brown will serve alongside businessman David Gonski and former diplomat Ric Smith, whose terms expire next year.

Labor introduced a merit-based appointment process in 2011, which was aimed at depoliticising the ABC and SBS boards.

SBS has two vacant board positions – including the position of chairman – and the ABC has one vacant position.

Dr Albrechtsen, a columnist for The Australian and former lawyer, has previously derided the ABC as a “Soviet-style workers collective”.

She was appointed to the ABC board by the Howard government and she served on it from 2005 to 2010.

In November, Dr Albrechtsen called for ABC managing director Mark Scott to resign for airing stories based on documents provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden about Australian intelligence operations in Indonesia.

Mr Brown, a former Victorian Liberal MP, served as deputy Liberal leader under John Howard in opposition and as the communications minister and minister for business and consumer affairs in the Fraser government.

Call me a politics tragic if  you like but I could not help finding this to be a promise of rancor to come because I can’t help but expect that there will be a whole stampede of our friends form the left who are going to be having kittens about the thought of Janet Albrechtsen having a big say in the selection of boards of both the ABC and SBS. Heaven help us if the result was boards that did not lean so far  to the left…
Cheers Comrades
abc_logo

Janet Albrechtsen, Gay Marriage and making gravy


If you have listened to this song before then it should not have escaped your attention that the process of making good gravy is just as important as the nature of the the ingredients  I hear the song on the radio this morning as I read Janet Albrechtsen this morning.

Janet Albrechtsen click for source

Janet Albrechtsen click for source

Gay marriage is not akin to securing the vote for women or ending apartheid. After all, civil unions are commonplace. Gay couples enjoy the same substantive rights as heterosexual couples. If they don’t they should. But the political battle to claim the word “marriage” for homosexuals is an elite agenda of the political classes for reasons not always honest.

Take the disingenuous claim that traditional marriage is an evil form of discrimination against gays. As Chief Justice John Roberts said in Hollingsworth last week, “when the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn’t get around and say let’s have this institution, but let’s keep out homosexuals. The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn’t include homosexual couples.”

Yet, those who oppose gay marriage for legitimate reasons are too often treated as morally inferior, out-of-date, and worse, bigoted.

Whether it’s a snooty editorial from The New York Times ridiculing the “incoherence” of opposing gay marriage in Hollingsworth or mocking grumbles from the audience on ABC1’s Q&A, too many gay marriage advocates have chosen the wrong way to advance their cause.

Redefining marriage in a way that promotes social cohesion means winning people over with reasoned arguments rather than trying to guilt them into agreeing.

What our activist friends seem to forget is  that for the sort of social changes they desire they have to convince  rather than coerce a change from those of us who want to see marriage remain as a heterosexual institution.

Patience is a virtue that seems far too removed from the activist mindset, maybe it shouldn’t be so if they want the changes they desire to be enduring accepted and effective.

Cheers Comrades

wedding-bouquet-1861-2560x1600

Stirred, not shaken

The other day My daughter told us that she has never seen a “Bond” film and I immediately felt that I have been negligent in her education if she has not seen any of the archetypical secret agent films based upon the novels of Ian Fleming. This is something that I must try to address over the Christmas holidays. This little anecdote leads me to Janet Albrechtsen’s critique of the dour feminists who whine about the nature of James Bond.

In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that those grouchy women who deride Bond would secretly love to be a sultry Bond girl for just a while at least. Before settling down to a life of academic introspection, who wouldn’t like to strap a Beretta 70 to the inside of their thigh, dress up in hopelessly tight-fitting gowns and, yes, have a naked Bond slip unannounced into their steamy shower? Come on, girls. ‘Fess up. Your fantasies can’t all be about being the first female chief justice of the High Court or the first female driver of a large piece of mining machinery in the Pilbara.

In any case, don’t underrate the Bond girls. Full of humour, they radiate a delightfully modern mix of confidence, arrogance and sexual liberation. Who can forget Pussy Galore, the lesbian pilot, or Plenty O’Toole and Holly Goodhead? Pick any Bond girl and I’ll find something more legitimately feminist about her than the Moaning Myrtles who cry sexism each time the latest Bond movie hits our screens. And then there’s that Bond woman M, head of MI6, who routinely puts 007 in his place. As other women my age have remarked, when you grew up in the late 1970s watching repeats of Bewitched and I Dream of Jeannie, the Bond girls were a refreshing break from Samantha and Jeannie.

Instead of whining that the latest Bond movie is sexist, spare a thought for the poor blokes who could air a bigger grievance. They can never hope to be Bond. Not in the 21st century, where revealing even the smallest hint of the alpha male is pounced on by puritanical feminists as a sign of uncontrolled machismo and sexism. Maybe women like me love 007 because he is the antithesis of the metrosexual men who surround us.

In fact, if Bond is sexist and millions of modern, liberated women are still being seduced by the sexy spy, maybe the sisterhood should ask whether it is somehow to blame for making him so damn alluring.

click top search for source

The sad fact is that so many feminist  warriors are far to serious about cultural Icons like James Bond and if they would just lighten up a bit then maybe the few truths that they are enunciating would not be ignored along with the hyperbole that is their stock in trade.

Cheers Comrades

Wedging the Greens

I do love Janet Albrechtsen’s style. She cuts right to the chase and in her incisive piece from today’s Oz she points out that there is much to be gained for Gillard’s leadership if she makes a stand for nuclear energy development in this country. I like her suggestion that by doing so Gillard can consign the Greens to the same sort of irrelevance that is now enjoyed by One Nation.

Plenty of sensible Labor minds recognise the potential of nuclear energy for base load 24/7 power and the limits of wind and solar energy. The facts are on the table. As Ziggy Switkowski, chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, has pointed out, this is a 55-year-old industry. Thirty-one countries already use nuclear power. Fuel and spent rods have been moved across the world without incident. Britain will increase its nuclear power to 30 per cent by the 2030s. France has increased its nuclear power to 80 per cent of energy needs over 50 years. US President Barack Obama has endorsed nuclear power. Japan, the size of Victoria, with 127 million people, has 55 reactors. Germany, the same size as NSW, also has accommodated nuclear reactors. The Italians are doing the same. China, with electricity demand growing by 12 per cent each year, has 24 nuclear reactors under construction and more in the planning. Both India and China, where this debate ultimately will be decided, are projected to be the biggest users of nuclear power by 2050.

And Australia? With 40 per cent of the world’s uranium resources, the present political cowardice makes no sense. As new Liberal MP Josh Frydenberg said in his recent maiden address, “It is a curious moral, economic and environmental position that we find ourselves in where we are prepared to supply uranium but not use it.” In February, Australian Workers Union boss Paul Howes described nuclear power as a “political reality”. We will, he said, have that debate in the future.

The future is now. Rather than allowing gay marriage to dominate the next ALP national conference, modern Labor must redefine its relationship with the Greens. And that, says the Labor member, can happen only if the left faction can “summon the fortitude to change the game”. “History is tapping you on the shoulder,” Sawyer told Combet.

Janet Albrechtsen

I’m a conservative these days but there is still part of me that cares about the fate of the ALP even if it is only because I think the country is better served by that party dominating the cross benches from a good coalition government than the Loopy Greens being anywhere near the parliament.

Cheers Comrades

 

Greens policies, a secret agenda that is anti-free trade, anti-capitalism, anti-wealth, anti-consumption and anti-growth.

Well it seems that I am not the only person to like what Kevin Andrews has to say about those nasty Greens because Janet Albrechtsen has a high opinion of his analysis of the Greens as well:

Janet Albrechtsen

“Unless we understand the ideological foundations of the Greens, we will fail to effectively address the challenge of their revolution . . . What the Greens present is the cutting edge of a clash within Western civilisation itself,” Andrews said. By looking closely at Greens policies, he has uncovered what he calls the new coercive utopianism.

It becomes clear that behind every stated purpose – and an increasing number of anodyne motherhood statements – set out in Greens policies through the years is a secret agenda that, at its core, is anti-free trade, anti-capitalism, anti-wealth, anti-consumption and anti-growth.

The Greens’ latest bill to stop banks raising interest rates beyond the Reserve Bank’s official cash rate is just the latest example. It fits the Greens’ agenda to reduce the flow of credit in an effort to reduce consumption. Drawing on the Greens de facto think tank, the Australia Institute, new Greens member Adam Bandt wants us to work less, too, presumably so we earn less money and consume less material goods.

For too long, Greens extremism has been hidden from the Australian public under a cuddly shroud of green goodwill.

As success brings more scrutiny, the Greens may well go the way of earlier “new forces” in Australian politics. But just as the Greens would be foolish to take their continuing success for granted, we would be unwise to treat their demise as a given.

 

Hmm I bet that a certain rather desperate minion of that party (who is nonetheless rather tardy about paying his party dues) will be writing a piece denouncing Janet’s opinion as a ” Green smear” at a Totally Toxic website.That said I think that the Greens certainly need to have their true agendas exposed and denounced at every opportunity so that care and concern for the environment can be reclaimed by those of us who don’t have a Marxist agenda and a misanthropic desire to destroy the future for humanity.
Cheers Comrades

 

 

Moderate? by what standard?

Leon’s excellent piece about the Latte Sipper’s™ favourite son  put me in the right mood to consider the sins committed in the name of Islam and then I read the latest piece from Janet Albrechtsen which makes the point that “moderate” Islam is only moderate by comparison to its own extremes. By our standards of moderation it does not really  deserve  the epithet at all.

Moderate Islam is not so moderate if you are a Christian either. In August, 300 hardline Islamic protesters confronted Christians worshipping in an open field owned by the Christians. The Christians want to build a church. A leader of the hardline Islamic Defenders Front told reporters that the culture of the people will not allow a church. Earlier this year, thousands of Muslim extremists set fire to a Christian community centre in West Java when they suspected the local Christians planned to build a small chapel. According to the Setara Institute for Democracy and Peace, there have been more than 28 attacks on churches since January, a substantial increase since last year.

And how is moderate Islam doing when it comes to freedom of speech? While President Yudhoyono boasts about his country’s “increasingly incisive” free press, one the markers of moderate Islam’s commitment to democracy, it’s too bad if you’re the editor of Playboy Indonesia, a magazine consciously remodelled for the local market with no nudity. After being tried and acquitted for public indecency in 2007, Erwin Arnada was found guilty of public indecency last month by a new Supreme Court ruling. Arnada was arrested last week and has commenced a two-year prison sentence. The Indonesian constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press, is no match for hardline Islamic groups baying for Arnada’s blood. Is that moderation?

Move to New York and the fraught debate over the proposed Ground Zero mosque. Muslims demand the mosque be built. And their left-liberal supporters decry opponents of the mosque as bigots. They demonise and scold mainstream Americans who think otherwise. Even New Yorkers believe Muslims should show some sensitivity to the atrocities committed in the name of Islam on 9/11. A poll in The New York Times found that while 67 per cent agree the right to freedom of religion allows the building of the mosque, they believe the developers should find a different site. An editorial by the moralising New York Times would have none of that. Building the mosque would be “a gesture to Muslim-Americans”, it lectured. What about a gesture from moderate Muslims?

In recent years the West has fallen over itself to accommodate Muslim sensitivities. In Britain, the BBC boss says Islam should be treated differently from other religions. American publishers pull books that might offend Muslim sensibilities. Television stations censor images of Mohammed. Why does the accommodation always run one way?

Moderate Muslims would surely understand tolerance is a two-way street. They might agree the building of a mosque at Ground Zero is a political, rather than a religious, point. Instead, there is just silence. Always silence.

 

Janet Albrechtsen

Janet is correct here and as tolerant as I am to be about any belief in the the supernatural, about any religious practice is there really any obligation to tolerate the the intolerant? Because if we concede the point when someone wants to insist that their belief system should be unquestioned then we are giving up a most important part of our secular democracy, the right to speak freely and to call a spade a spade.

Cheers Comrades

“They have a killing problem”

Janet Albrechtsen writes a cracking piece in today’s Oz about the Jihadist problem and explains why treating them just like normal civil criminals is a very bad idea sadly far to many “progressives” just don’t seem to get it at all.

Janet Albrechtsen

Janet Albrechtsen

It takes a sweet but rather dim-witted Pollyanna view of the world to suppose that men infused with an ideology to kill infidels and trained to do so need only spend some time in the equivalent of a detox centre to get those dirty jihadist thoughts out of their minds. These guys don’t have a drinking or drug problem. They have a killing problem.

But in a society where we think we can treat every transgression, from swearing to homophobic language, with a stint in rehab, it’s no great surprise that we now think terrorists are just miscreants of a slightly nastier kind.

This has always been the liberal mindset. Terrorists, we were told, ought to be treated and prosecuted as criminals in ordinary courts, because we can’t really be at war with a transnational group of religious nutters. The obsession with simple moral absolutes meant that denying habeas corpus rights to alleged terrorists caught on the battlefield was equally wrong. Liberal justices in the US Supreme Court agreed, leading Chief Justice John Roberts to declare, in dissent, that the American people had just lost “a bit more control over the conduct of this nation’s foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges”. Soldiers would henceforth have to collect evidence and take witness statements from the battlefield like a cop busting a drug ring. As Justice Antonin Scalia said in his dissent, “how to handle enemy prisoners in this war will ultimately lie with the branch that knows least about national security”.

Now let us just imagine a twelve step program for Jihadists…

“My name is Omar and it has been six months since I made my last bomb…

Hmm, it just does not seem to work as a joke, perhaps that is because there is nothing to laugh about here and some very hard headed thinking is needed to tackle this issue.

Cue PKD
Cheers Comrades

hmm

%d bloggers like this: