OH, WHAT A LOOK!

Gillard is the "ad hominem" queen.  Instead of answering the question, she attacks the questioner

Larry Pickering

Successive AWU questions from Julie Bishop appear to have unsettled our Julia. Her confident upbeat demeanor vanished like Costello's surplus as she again refused to answer the question.

(Video here.  Gillard, as ever, dodges the question)

Gillard's body and facial language displayed emphatic discomfit as Ms Bishop exhibited her best death-stare and waved a copy of a slush fund cheque in her face.

Everyone noticed Gillard's reaction. The House went from bedlam to silence as the cry of, "You are corrupt!" stunned both sides.

Those three words, that one outburst, exposed a chink in Gillard's armour and marked a course-change in the AWU saga and now the time is right for Abbott to join with Bishop and all other front benchers in an all out attack.

Abbott's "There will be no carbon tax under..." lie is losing traction. It has run its course. A reminder every couple of weeks will work better than twice a day.

Many will disagree with me but I have never thought the famous carbon tax lie was politically significant. It was an unavoidable lie for Gillard. It was a lie forced on her by the Greens. She felt she had no choice if she wanted to be PM and boy did she want to be PM.

There were alternatives. Gillard did not need to sign an agreement with the Green devils, she had them in her pocket anyway. It's inconceivable the Coalition could ever have aligned with the Greens. it was never even discussed.

But Gillard wanted this arrangement formalised and was prepared to pay the price.

Gillard stared into her Cornflakes that morning, thinking, thinking. "I went into this election with a `no carbon tax' promise but how the hell could I have suspected a hung Parliament? It's all different now. Hey, I'm a woman, what's a little white lie, everyone knows even blokes lie?"

"Bugger it, I'm going to sign a deal with that pillow bitin' bastard. And I reckon I'll give Windsor and Oakeshott me best come-to-bed look and if that doesn't work I'll keep chuckin' billion-dollar deals at `em until they fold.

"Jules baby, you are goin' to be Australia's first elected PM. What a bloody ripper! I could get three terms out of this... if only that Wilson shit doesn't come up again."

You see Tony, didn't you notice? That's her weak spot! Not the carbon tax.

The media ball is slowly starting to roll and they are waiting for you to grasp the nettle. How can media get serious about something the Leader of the Opposition doesn't think is important enough to even ask a damned question about?

Those commentators who are "waiting for a smoking gun" have not read the AWU Cambridge Affidavit, which was co-written by her own colleague Rob McClelland. It's a message they don't want to hear.

If the Lefties of the Press gallery had read it, they would have known exactly what Gillard needed to explain in that out-of-the blue, no-questions, no-answers farce she called a Press conference.

I mean, why would Gillard have supplied answers when nobody knew what the questions were?

Or was that the general idea, Julia?

SOURCE






Australia could rethink Palestine stand on UN

AUSTRALIA could still back a Palestine state winning a place at the United Nations, despite "hot debate" inside the government and determined opposition from the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.

The Foreign Affairs Minister, Bob Carr, has told Israeli and Palestinian officials in recent weeks Australia will not take a final decision on the potentially explosive issue until the wording of any resolution is clear.

But Labor's longest-serving foreign minister, Gareth Evans, has warned Australia could be on the "wrong side of history" by opposing a Palestinian push to win observer status at the UN General Assembly.

"The issue has been hotly debated within the government over the last year but it is one on which the Prime Minister has very strong views, and her views have so far prevailed," Professor Evans said on Thursday night.

The former foreign minister Kevin Rudd had written to Ms Gillard last year advising that Australia should abstain in the General Assembly, but the issue was left unresolved after Palestinian diplomats decided not to send a resolution for a vote.

Palestinian officials, frustrated by peace negotiations with Israel, are driving for the UN seat as a way of securing international recognition of Palestinian statehood.

But Israel is fiercely opposed to the move, accusing Palestinians of breaking an agreement not to make any unilateral declaration of statehood.

Australian diplomats had feared the Palestinian question could be brought on before last month's vote on the campaign for Security Council seat - with the potential to cruel Australia's chances to win over Arab and Islamic nations.

Australia had already risked a backlash by siding with Israel, the US and 11 other nations last year to oppose Palestine joining a key UN cultural body, after Ms Gillard over-ruled Mr Rudd.

But Australia has also sought in recent months to send subtle signals of support for a two-state solution to the conflict, with officials switching back an earlier formulation and referring to "Palestine" instead of "Palestinian Territories".

The debate over Palestinian membership of the UN is set to resurface, with the Palestine leader, Mahmoud Abbas, expected to return to the General Assembly, possibly later this month.

"When the resolution is put the only uncertainty about the outcome will be the size of the affirmative majority," Professor Evans said. He said estimates of support had 115 votes in favour, 20 against and between 50 to 60 set to abstain.

A spokesman for Senator Carr said Australia would look at the text of the resolution when it was available and make a decision.

SOURCE






Bunbury mother outraged over hugging ban:  Letter to paper

Stupid Fascist school Principal:   If something is a problem, don't deal with it.  Ban it!

Heidi Rome

I am writing this to you as a concerned parent.

My daughter is in year six and is in the Academic Class of Excellence.   She is a well-mannered, bright and caring person who her teacher thinks highly of her and she would never do anything to hurt another person.

 Last Friday she received detention from the principal, the reason she received this was because she gave her classmate (female) a friendly hug goodbye after the end of day bell had gone.

I have since spoke to the school and the principal and apparently there is a rule at the school that the students are not allowed to hug one another.

I have never heard of this before and I read nearly all of the schools newsletters.

I asked why such a harsh punishment and her reply was because she had only just spoken to the whole school about this issue two hours previously so she was taking a stance on the matter. Well I think this is way over the top to punish a child for a friendly hug.

 My concern is the harsh punishment and the fact kids are no longer able to be kids and hug one another. Her reasoning for this rule that was bought in was to stop boyfriend / girlfriend hugging (some parents had complained about it) and the students that were running across the schoolyard and slamming into one another.

So everyone suffers now because of a few silly children, I asked her why not teach those children appropriate behavior instead of banning hugs altogether.

What is that teaching the children instead, that hugs are inappropriate and wrong?

I have also asked the question have they spoken to a child physiologist regarding the effect on giving the impression to the students that they must not hug your friends?

The answer was no, but I can if I want too. Also siblings are not allowed to hug each other, so how can you explain to a five year old that they cant hug their older brother or sister.

 According to theorist regarding child development this is a natural development of children and I certainly don't want my children not to be able to hug friends or family.

I have spoken to a number of parents from this school and teachers from other schools and they completely agree me and are outraged about this rule.

Research has also shown that in this day and age where communication is ruled by technology children need to have more affection and be encouraged to have human empathy.

Schools should be a comforting place for kids and be all warm and fuzzy as for some children it may be the only bit they get.

I hope this matter can be bought to the attention of other parents out there and something done about it as I do not want my younger primary aged children being bought up in a society that says hugs between friends and siblings are inappropriate at school and also the school is not going to change this rule.

SOURCE






Sri Lankan asylum seekers sent home

A group of Sri Lankan men have been sent home from Christmas Island after they were found not to have legitimate claims for asylum.  Immigration Minister Chris Bowen confirmed the 26 men left on a charter flight late yesterday.

Mr Bowen has also confirmed the final member of a group of 15 Sri Lankans involved in allegedly hijacking a boat in Sri Lankan waters has also been returned.

Political correspondent Sabra Lane told AM the group of 26 men sent home was not connected to that case:

   " We understand that this was only the second time that the Minister has used powers available to him under the Migration Act to do this.

    He used these powers last weekend to send home a group of men who were accused of piracy. But this group last night, they were totally separate to that group and not involved in that case.

    These 26 Sri Lankans, according to the department, had no legal right to be here and they didn't make, according to the department, credible or legitimate claims for asylum.

    Crucially here, these men apparently raised no issues about Australia's international obligations.

    They made no reference to Australia's being obliged under the UN Convention for Refugees to consider their claims."

SOURCE