the bias sound of ABC...
I may be wrong...
But I feel that Fran Kelly on Radio National ABC TV is not so secretly enamoured with Tony Abbott... She seems to hate Julia. It may be that she loves the sound of her own voice while talking with a man, but when talking with other journos, it's all in roundabouts based on politics rather than the importance of proper policies... Even this morning I think I heard her say something like "I don't trust this government to achieve something worthwhile..." between two interview segments. Of course this comment does not appear on transcripts because the transcripts are focused on the interviews...
I could have heard wrong... but I don't think so...
The main swingabout when discussing the policies of the day, these journos's focus is not on what has been achieved but on the political machination, the titillating imagined possibilities of people powerplay like pop stars having affairs, the lies and, of course, always making sure that Julia is bagged for "having knifed Kevin in the back"... Making sure that the public don't forget this is their primary subconscious mission... Well, Fran, Michelle (Grattan) and Paul (Bongiorno) BUZZ OFF... Had Julia not taken over then, we'd have a rotten Abbott government leading this country towards nothingness by now and we'd be so worse off for it... One thing that these motor-mouth mongrels bring on and on is the fact that Julia said that her government would not introduce a carbon tax and she did... Well Julia "had no choice" but to do so at the moment... She is fighting a nasty gnarly demonic dangerous Tony (loved by the media for it) who will do anything — including lying beyond belief as well (but they love that concept, don't they) — to topple Julia. Julia has to manage a minority government in which the Greens pledged to bring a carbon tax. So be it.
It's for the best of the country — and dare I say, FOR THE PLANET.
Every second minutes, the Liberals (conservatives) ask for a new election knowingly that Julia and Labor would loose hands down, BUT SO WOULD AUSTRALIA.
Even when the journos discuss the asylum-seekers issues, they see the policy "backdown" as a big loss for Julia (because Tony did not come to support her in her bid to use exotic processing — a point in which he did cut his own nose by the closure of his own option — Nauru)... But, these mongrel-blabbers could not recognise that in fact it is a great victory for those Australian — including Malcolm Fraser (former Liberal PM of Australia) — who prefer an onshore processing of refugees.
When Bowen was interviewed by Fran (this morning as well), I could be wrong though, I sensed she was foaming at the mouth from letting him explain clearly — while she was trying to cut him off — that despite a few problems, the processing of refugees had improved dramatically...
The result of policies or no policy is quite unimportant in the eye of many journos... For example many journos comment that the government failed to "sell the carbon tax"... Some journos would have preferred the government to have said something to the punters like "it's for your own health like having better clean air with less pollution, etc". This would actually be a lie. Science could not support this view. The fact is that too many journos (possibly more than 90 per cent) have made a point of not understanding the reality of global warming for whatever reasons. These journos are not interested in understanding the process but have fallen for the con trick peddled by the "getthecarbonpriceright or whatever mob", supported by the Liberals (conservatives) who basically don't want anything done about climate change. They claim Australia produces so little CO2 compared to the rest of the world so why should we do something about it that will cost us dearly? Few journos are prepared to also make the vital distinction between the "natural" CO2 cycle and the extra human-added CO2 in the atmosphere... Sometime I feel like I should wring their necks for confusing the two dynamics.
The Carbon Tax is still in its infancy and it's a question of fair share and efficiency. It won't cost as much as we think but it's an important step in the right direction after having fiddled-faddled for more than 30 years. Global warming is STILL FIERCE despite a cool October in Sydney.
WE HAVE TO REDUCE OUR USAGE OF EXTRA CARBON. WE HAVE TO REDUCE OUR EMISSIONS OF CO2. WE HAVE TO REDUCE OUR EMISSIONS OF METHANE.
No matter what, the pill is a bitter pill.
No one can make this pill taste good because we've not seen the full impact of global warming on the future yet. Nor are we willing to see it. So we dispute the prognosis. We go and trust quacks like Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt rather than believe we have a dangerous form of cancer as told to us by all the real scientific experts in the field... And the quacks win the day because it's easy to dispute future facts with now emotions when the facts are complex and "not readily obvious".
Should global warming be obvious, we would be in super deep shit. And that is the problem...
In some way, I believe that Julia is prepared to sacrifice her own future for the better future of this country and of this planet. On the face of it, I don't think she would be worried by that. On the face of it, I would be prepared to believe that she thinks that "onshore" processing of refugees is a valid and possibly better option... but the bad mood set by Howard and Abbott made this option politically "impossible", so the only way to achieve this was to make all other options legally impossible... See my drift? And this to some extend is Julia's success of turning her defeat into a common sense quiet victory... Trust me. don't tell this to anyone... Julia is smarter than most.