Wednesday 29th of June 2016

Recent Comments

by Gus Leonisky on Wed, 2016-06-29 13:14


Mrs Turnbull said at the time she believed she had been invited to the lunch as the Prime Minister's "consort". 

"I'm not here in my role as a public official," she told Fairfax Media minutes before the $3000-a-head boardroom discussion on gender equality with some of Sydney's most influential businesswomen.

Attendees included Diane Smith-Gander, the former head of detention centre contractor Transfield.

In extraordinary mea culpa, later than afternoon, the Liberal Party issued an unreserved apology to the Prime Minister's wife over the event and said it would donate the tens of thousands of dollars it raised to charity.

Since then however, the Liberal Party has ignored a number of inquiries about how much was handed over to St Vincent de Paul as a result of its apology to Ms Turnbull and its promise not to use the fundraiser proceeds for political purposes.

But the charity has welcomed a $40,000 donation.

"St Vincent de Paul Society NSW is in receipt of $40,000 from the Australian Liberal Party," Dianne Lucas, acting chief executive of the St Vincent de Paul Society NSW, said.

"The money donated will be used for women's refuges run by Vinnies such as Vincentian House, Our Lady of the Way and others."

Vincentian House in Surry Hill is a crisis accommodation service for women and their families, while Our Lady of the Way, based in western Sydney, assists women over the age of 55 experiencing homelessness.

Meanwhile Julie Bishop and Scot Morrison have kept a poker face and not revealed the way they would vote when the result of the plebiscite is put to parliament... They don't want to antagonise Cory Bernady and his liberal philosophy.

by Gus Leonisky on Wed, 2016-06-29 10:04





After Brexit? The Referendum and Its Discontents

Scott Stephens (Introduction)



It is difficult to overestimate the gravity of Britain's decision to leave the European Union. I've invited a number of exceptionally perceptive theologians, philosophers and political theorists to reflect on the meaning of the referendum, whether it is morally binding or democratically legitimate, and what it means for the future.

The Rt. Rev. Dr Rowan Williams

The Christian imperative is surely to tackle fears at their root and hold up the model of a truly interdependent world in which the welfare of each is inseparable from the welfare of all, nationally and globally; the model of the Body of Christ.


John Milbank

  1. Christians are duty bound for theological and historical reasons to support the ever closer union of Europe (which does not imply a superstate) and to deny the value of absolute sovereignty or the lone nation-state. Tragically, the Reformation, Roundhead, nonconformist, puritan, whig, capitalist, liberal version of Britishness last night triumphed over our deep ancient character which is Catholic or Anglican, Cavalier, Jacobite, High Tory or Socialist. The spirit of both Burke and Cobbett has been denied by the small-minded, bitter, puritanical, greedy and Unitarian element in our modern legacy. Unfortunately it has duped the working classes, once again to their further ruination.
  2. The vote was very nearly a 50/50 split. That is no basis on which to proceed with leaving the EU.
  3. Young people much more voted Remain. We cannot allow deluded old people to destroy their future.

I do not accept this result as legitimate and I invite all true-hearted English and Welsh people (the Scots and Irish have voted to remain) to join me in a struggle against it, in solidarity with our fellow Europeans.


Austen Ivereigh


Here is what happens next. The Conservative MPs will elect a new leader, and therefore Prime Minister, by the end of September. He (or possibly she) will secure their mandate by calling an election, which the Labour Party will lose spectacularly. The new PM, pro-Brexit and riding the populist wave, will govern virtually without an opposition. Cameron's technocratic liberal conservatism will be replaced by a populist, anti-corporate conservatism, a petit-bourgeois nationalism perfectly in tune with the reduced role on the world stage that England - by then dismembered from both the European Union and the United Kingdom - comes to occupy.

I hope I'm proved wrong.



Jonathan Chaplin


We can expect the deficiencies of our electoral and party systems to come into sharper relief as the two main parties scramble to respond over the coming weeks and months to the leadership crises unleashed by the Brexit vote, which will again painfully lay bare their deeper crises of convictional identity. It is, tragically, too late for efforts to remedy Britain's home-grown "democratic deficit" to repair our shattered relationship with the EU. But if ever our grandchildren - it will surely take at least that long - are to have any meaningful chance of rebuilding that relationship, the deficit will have to be fixed at home first. Taking the needed steps towards that end now would be one small declaration of hope in the very idea of a living, conviction-based representative democracy, in Britain and in Europe.




Canon Dr Angus Ritchie



The two issues - social justice for the communities left behind by capitalism and a spiritual foundation for our common life - are of course deeply connected. The church is called to live out a Gospel which affirms the unique dignity of every human being, whose true fulfilment can only be found in communities which worship God and embody his mercy and justice. This is not a time to issue pronouncements from a place of privilege and self-righteousness, but to follow Christ into England's Nazareths with humble and repentant hearts.




Frank Mols

What also appears to have plummeted to 1980s levels is the morale of progressive Briton's, who now face the dire prospect of addressing growing inequality through national institutions and elections. Certainly, the labour movement was a British product, and perhaps Britain can pull it off again. But that seems unlikely and to forget that globalization and economic integration are a reality, whether we like it or not!


GLOBALISATION IS A EUPHEMISM FOR EMPIRE WITH VASSALS AND SLAVES including destruction of culture — PLUS WARS WE DON'T NEED, just to sell more Coca Cola...









by Gus Leonisky on Wed, 2016-06-29 08:22

The US Senate’s top war hawk was joined by the head of the Senate Foreign Relations committee in questioning the Obama administration’s commitment to a 21st Century Nuclear Arms Race.

On Monday, Senate Armed Services Chair John McCain (R-AZ) and Senate Foreign Relations Chair Bob Corker (R-TN) released a letter to the Obama administration calling for the United States to maintain its commitment to expanding and upgrading the country’s nuclear arsenal, a move seemingly at odds with the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

The two Republican senators expressed concern with President Barack Obama’s near apology in Hiroshima last month, as well as White House Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes recent commentary at an Arms Control Association that suggests a departure from America’s aggressive foreign policy posture.

"We are concerned Mr. Rhodes’ comments may presage efforts, such as a rumored Blue Ribbon panel, to review the modernization program you promised to fund for as long as you are president, which would obviously contradict your personal promise to the Senate and military necessity," read the letter, written on June 17.

The nuclear "modernization" plan is projected to cost in excess of $350 billion over the course of the next ten years, and will lead to a massive increase of America’s atomic arsenal.

The modernization effort will see the US Air Force acquiring 1,100 new Long Range Stand-Off (LRSO) nuclear-armed cruise missiles and a spate of advanced intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) that officials believe will be able to penetrate anti-ballistic missile shields.

The US Air Force is not the only military service that will see an expansion in stockpiles. The US Navy will also acquire scores of upgraded Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles under the program.

During his visit to Hiroshima, Japan, President Barack Obama called for a "world without nuclear weapons." Ben Rhodes similarly suggested that the Obama administration would look to decrease the nuclear stockpile, seeking only to "maintain a credible deterrence that can sustain itself in the coming decades."

Andrew Weber, a former Obama administration official who served as the assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical and biological defense programs, also cautioned against increasing the US atomic stockpile. He cited excessive costs and the unnecessary power of some US nuclear weapons.

The US B83 gravity bomb, for instance, has a yield of over one megaton, roughly 75 times the catastrophic yield of the Hiroshima "Little Boy" bomb that killed nearly 150,000 Japanese civilians. 

"It has no legitimate use today," said Weber at the Arms Control Association conference. "We don’t need nuclear weapons in the megaton plus range of yield."

Senators McCain and Corker disagree with this assessment, calling for a flood of new taxpayer dollars to acquire more nuclear weapons with greater yield.

A recent poll shows John McCain losing his reelection bid for a sixth term in the US Senate to upstart Democratic Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick by two points, signaling that Arizona voters no longer care for the war hawk’s apocalyptic foreign policy agenda.


Don't worry Mr McCain... La Madam Clinton, the one you hate, will do accordingly, while mad Trump, the one you should love, won't...

Yes, the choice is grim: a warmongering woman who wants revenge or a peace-seeking business loony golf course developer shark. Both religious to the eyeballs, except both of them are lying. We're in deep shit....

by Gus Leonisky on Wed, 2016-06-29 08:06



By Martin Berger

It’s been seven years since Obama delivered his famous speech at Cairo University in June 2009, which at the time was quite ironically heralded as the “new beginning” since it was believed that it would open a new page in the US relations with the Middle Eastern and North Africa.

Back then, this speech was perceived as an actual program that Obama would be following, therefore many Muslim states embraced Obama’s vision as a game changer. According to this “new beginning” speech, Obama was going to depart from the Bush-era marked by aggressive policies, known by the armed aggression against Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. The US president was also particularly vocal in declaring his support of mutual values most African and Islamic states share.

It must be understood that this speech has been instrumental in the Nobel Peace Prize that Obama was honored by the Nobel Committee with in its eagerness to show its unconditional support for Washington.

However, seven years later, even American experts only dare to mention this speech, proving the US has failed to fulfill any of Obama’s promises. It’s now a recognized fact that Washington’s “vision” of US relations with Middle East has been completely detached from reality, since the White House remains still a ruthless aggressor. But the Obama administration has taken it a step too far, going from simply intervening in the affairs of sovereign Muslim states to creating a dreadful reality, where civil institutions are now not simply undermined in the Middle East, they are replaced by brutal terrorist groups.

Today, Obama’s approach to the Middle East is often linked to Hillary Clinton’s belief about the need to impose total chaos across the region. The failure to deliver on his promises has recently been noted by  Newsweek, which would state:

When Obama took office, there were no major al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. Now they are back… and-bringing the whole sad spectacle full circle-ISIS has expanded from Iraq and Syria and established a presence in Afghanistan, taking over villages and imposing rule so brutal it is actually making Afghans long for the days of Taliban rule.

The influential alternative media source Counter Punch would go a step further:

The cause of peace in the Middle East has not advanced under Obama. His decision to follow Hillary Clinton’s advice rather than his own inclinations and intervene in Libya after the overthrow of Muammar el-Qaddafi was disastrous. There, as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan, the peace process has collapsed and good governance is a distant dream.

According to his “new beginning” policy, Obama pushed for the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and the resignation of Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen, at the outbreak of civil war in Syria. All this resulted in the growing influence of organized terrorism and the rapid emergence and expansion of new and extremely dangerous radical groups like ISIS.

According to various American analysts, the origins of ISIS lie in Obama’s and Clinton’s policy of delusions and half measures regarding the Iraq and Syria conflicts. The recent release of an August 2012 classified memo to the then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated the presence of the organization that later became ISIS among the Syrian opposition forces supported by the West.

It’s clear now that in Cairo Obama has indirectly announced his support for organized extremism. At the time his team had already had been knee deep in supporting the idea that the the Muslim Brotherhood is a popular Arab movement that would be able to bring “a change” to the the countries of the region and transform the existing autocratic regimes into more democratic ones. One of these “supporters” was Hillary Clinton who made political deals with extremist groups a common practice among US foreign policy. Arabs still believe that Washington hasn’t given up this practice even now, although it was forced to take it a couple of steps back. It’s true that Obama’s reliance on elite forces and drones may reduce US casualties, but it still amounts to intervention and avoidance of peacemaking. Obama has also smashed records for selling weaponry and arms to America’s so-called Middle East “allies,” many of whom continue to wage their own wars of destruction.

The failed promise of the Arab Spring virtually everywhere has been equaled only by the US failure to find faithful partners amidst extremists. Therefore, as of now, the US has no reliable allies in the Arab world worth mentioning.

The only good thing American analysts can say now about Obama’s “new beginning” is that by 2020, the Clinton presidency most likely will make us all feel much better about Barack Obama’s failures in comparison.

Therefore, all of us are responsible in assisting US citizens in making an informed decision about who is going to run the White House in the years to come, since this choice will directly affect the development of the situation not only in the Middle East and Africa, but across the globe as well.

Martin Berger is a freelance journalist and geopolitical analyst, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”  

See toon at top... See also article above posted in June 2015: artists of the world for peace...
Gus is a member of the group

The Bataclan was the venue 

World Citizen Artists First Anniversary Celebration

Sunday 21 June 2015 from 7pm to Midnight

Bataclan Café

50 Boulevard Voltaire

75011 Paris


November 2015 Paris attacks

On the evening of 13 November 2015, a series of coordinated terrorist attacks occurred in Paris, France and the city's northern suburb, Saint-Denis.[7] Beginning at 21:20 CET, three suicide bombers struck near the Stade de France in Saint-Denis, followed by suicide bombings and mass shootings at cafés, restaurants and a music venue in central Paris.[8]

The attackers killed 130 people,[2] including 89 at the Bataclan theatre,[9] where they took hostages before engaging in a stand-off with police. Another 368 people were injured,[4] 80–99 seriously.[5][6] Seven of the attackers also died, while the authorities continued to search for accomplices.[3] The attacks were the deadliest on France since World War II,[10][11] and the deadliest in the European Union since the Madrid train bombings in 2004.[12] France had been on high alert since the January 2015 attacks on Charlie Hebdo offices and a Jewish supermarket in Paris that killed 17 people and wounded 22, including civilians and police officers.[13]


by Gus Leonisky on Wed, 2016-06-29 07:47


From the Washington Post, a month ago...

Correction: This blog post incorrectly suggested that the Beaurepaire Park estate is owned by Yuri Luzhkov. In fact, the sole beneficial owner of the estate is Mr. Luzhkov’s wife, Elena Baturina, according to records provided by an attorney for the couple.

In the village of Bramley, Hampshire, an English country estate is undergoing a major renovation. A large crane can be seen from the road, along with wide lawns and the old trees of an elegant park. Beaurepaire Park was pointed out to me a few weeks ago by locals who told me the surprising name of their new neighbor: Yuri Luzhkov, the former mayor of Moscow.

Fascinated to learn that Luzhkov and his wife, Elena Baturina, Russia’s only female billionaire, had decided to experience English country life, I looked up the house in the British Land Registry. But although the purchase price was there – £5.5 million ($7.9 million) — I found no Russian names. The owner is Skymist Holdings Limited, which is also responsible for the extensive renovation. (Update: See correction above)

I thought of Beaurepaire Park this week, when British Prime Minister David Cameron was overheard telling the Queen that the leaders of two “fantastically corrupt” countries, Nigeria and Afghanistan, were coming to the anti-corruption summit he was holding in London. This “gaffe” was piously reported as somehow insulting, even though when asked, Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari said Cameron was “telling the truth.” Buhari was too polite to make the obvious rejoinder: If we are going to start calling countries “fantastically corrupt,” then Britain, like the United States, belongs on that list, too.

Not that “corruption” in London takes exactly the same form as it does in Abuja or Kabul. Daily life in Britain does not require the payment of bribes; the court system is widely and justly admired. But over the past couple of decades, London’s accountants and lawyers have helped launder billions of dollars of stolen money through the British Virgin Islands, among other British overseas territories.  The British property market — like the New York property market — has long functioned like an old-fashioned Swiss bank, providing safe real estate investments for owners who wish their identities and their sources of income to be hidden. Several U.S. states — most famously Delaware, but also New Mexico, Nevada and Wyoming — make it possible for anonymous owners to register companies with few legal checks, too. Those companies can then go on to do business, or buy property, in places such as rural Hampshire.

Belatedly, things are beginning to change. The Panama Papers leak embarrassed Cameron personally because his late father was listed as having run — legally — an offshore investment fund. In London this week, he announced that Britain would henceforth require the “beneficial owners” of British property to reveal their names in a public register. Last January, U.S. authorities instituted a similar set of rules, starting in Manhattan and Florida’s Miami-Dade County.

But there is still a long way to go, in Reno, the Cayman Islands and Hampshire alike. At base, the problem remains one of perception: Because we don’t see the effects so easily in our own lives, it’s still far too easy to pretend that corruption in Moscow or Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, is something best explained by the moral weakness of Russians and Kazakhs, not our own. Because there are no “corpses on the street,” as one investigator put it, we treat it as “not our problem.”

Instead we pay the price in other ways. Think of the foreign policy time and foreign aid money we spend fighting poor governance and corruption in other countries. Think of the effort required to cope with the fallout when kleptocratic states — Afghanistan, for example — fail and fall apart, or when, like Russia, they become aggressive and threatening. The world would be safer and richer if we stopped laundering the money that helped create those kleptocracies in the first place. But like addicts or alcoholics, we’ll first need to admit that we have a problem before we can really begin to solve it.


Gus note: Russia has not threatened anyone. Russia is not "aggressive" either. Like most countries in the world, Russia seeks peace, because war would be too onerous. The Russians intervened efficiently in Syria to a) protect "their" only Mediterranean sea port, b) to stop the silly dreadful American policy of supporting Wahhabi extremists (terrorists) against a moderate but firm government c) to protect their gas market to Europe d) to provide balance in the Shia-Sunni "eternal" war.

Russia took Crimea (truly a Russian province) in a fair retribution to unlawful expansion of US "interests" in Ukraine. That NATO exercises near the Russian borders lead the Russians to embolden their own troops is "natural".

Unlike the US, Russia does not want war nor is Russia trying to "change" the world contrarily to the whims and fancies of warmongering US presidents spewing fake ideals of "democracy" that destroy cultures.


Gus note 2: Our own PM, Malcolm Turnbull uses the Cayman Islands to do tax minimisation in investments legally. He should be booted out.

by Gus Leonisky on Tue, 2016-06-28 22:06

So horrible a fact can hardly pleaded for favour:
Therefore go you, Equity, examine more diligently
The manner of this outrageous robbery:
And as the same by examination shall appear,
Due justice may be done in presence here.

The Brexit event has shaken a lot of cobwebs, including the profiteers of the stock market — but not for long there. People know how to rob each others for profit. It's the major industry of capitalism.

But Brexit has attracted a lot of commentary. From religious preaching to political grand standing and nut-case opportunism, many commentators see the result from their little castle of biased views, including Gus. 

Gus thinks that the Brexit event is somewhat separate from the fact that Britain should have been kicked out of the EU long ago, for various reasons. It never played ball with the European community. It spied on the EU members and their leaders. It kept its own currency, instead of joining the Eurozone, as if the Euro was dirty. It thus created a bad deed in regard to the financing of Europe. The UK was given favourable exclusion clauses in the EU regulations. Many countries in the EU tolerated the Brits with a degree of resentment. Sure, the British citizens had no idea what was going on at MI6 and had no idea that their masters from Blair to Cameron have been telling porkies the size of Texas, though they should have known most of time...

So Brexit happened. A bit like a shot in the foot for Cameron. There were a variety of reasons: 

  • Some people saw their lifestyle and their "Britishness" being eroded  — and felt invaded by "belonging" to the EU. 
  • Racism played a small part in this view and the extreme right played this card very well.
  • Some people may have been sick of having to rescue countries like Greece. For them, spending a couple of days in Athens and being "robbed" blind by the locals was enough rescuing.

Starting low key, a religious preacher, tell us:

When the world is out of control, the absurd can begin to feel like common sense to those who have the absurd notion that the world should be controlled for their benefit alone.

Trump and Brexit are the result. They are responses to the sense of precariousness and disorder we experience now.

This sense of disorder is no illusion. We are in a moment when we are beset by foundational and basic questions about what human flourishing consists of, in every area of life. Among the many questions being asked in our present moment some are these:

When we can manipulate the basic structures of life at a genetic and planetary level, we are forced to ask what does it mean to be human? What is our relationship to the land, the sea and the air? And what are our responsibilities to the planet as a whole?

As we become more ethnically and morally diverse as societies and some states collapse - even while historic wounds fester and erupt in others - we are confronting questions about how to remember the past and whether a common life is even possible?

Amid economic crises and the dominance of the plutocratic 1%, we are asking whether there are limits to the market or is the market the only reality we all share?

so far, one sees politics and capitalism in action. One may agree or not. I would say, we have always been ethnically different and morally diverse — but not necessarily in the same domain. the point is we have often failed to notice it because we failed to look beyond the privet hedges of our villages. As well, in the past, most of the colonial activities were to enslave the ethnically different for personal or corporate benefit, with the exploration of missionaries as scouts and the benediction of the church. 

Now the writer's sorry whiff of religious bigotry comes in as if it was a sermon about sins creating earthquakes:

Through debates about gender and sexuality, we are asking what does it mean to be a man or woman? What the nature, form and role of the family should be? And how are we going to raise our kids?

Amid changing patterns of work and the incursion of information technology into every area of life, we are asking what is work? What is social life? And what should be the relationship between humans and machines?

With changes in medical technology, we ask what is health? And how are we going to care for the elderly?

In a globalized world made up of networks and flows of people, information, goods and services, we are debating what the role and form of the state should be? And is democracy fit for purpose?

An analogous moment occurred in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century through the processes of urbanization, industrialization, bureaucratization, imperialism and so on. Fundamental questions about the social, economic and political basis of human life together were asked. This was a trans-Atlantic conversation and, within the context of European empires, a global one.


read more:


All this is crap-twap. People don't think that much to vote NO to Europe. The last paragraph is too convoluted to make sense anyway.

And urbanization, industrialization, bureaucratization, imperialism has given some clear benefits for some people. It has always been a question of proportion.


Meanwhile, historical reasons for voting NO to Europe can come from football fever and remembering Napoleon. No to the pissy French and especially No to the Germans who gave us WWII.


Another rabid Christian, a US teaching pastor at Second Baptist Church, Houston, Texas, Wallace Henley, tells us with gravitas:



Jonathan Sandys is no elitist, but he is the great-grandson of Sir Winston Churchill. He and I co-authored God and Churchill, which explores Jonathan's great-grandfather's spiritual background and providential destiny. Jonathan, a British citizen now living in Houston, very much wanted Britain to remain in the EU.

"A United Europe was my great-grandfather's dream," he said, as we had a friendly debate.

Jonathan, like his famous ancestor, has a broad vision. He is concerned for Britain's security in a world where Obama foreign policy has shredded overseas confidence in a friendship with the United States [whatever this means].

"My great-grandfather would have voted 'Remain,'" thinks Jonathan.

But I'm not sure.

Churchill's vision was in the context of 1945 Europe. It was a continent struggling to rebuild after the Second World War. Europe in 1945 still remembered the First World War, when the august ruling monarchs, most blood-related, went at each other through the sacrifice of their young men. Churchill wanted a Europe that would live as a community, not an asteroid belt of colliding states.

Further, as Jonathan and I show in detail in God and Churchill, Sir Winston saw the Second World War as being for the survival of "Christian Civilization," a term he used repeatedly. One doubts he would be excited about the rabid secularism of the current EU and its abandonment of "Christian Civilization."

Jonathan and I, though disagreeing about the current vote, concur that Brexit contained important lessons. For one, he says, it revealed the weakness of the UK's leadership. Were Churchill in power now the vote would have never come up because he would have personally gone to Brussels and roared at the elites, confronted their errors, and demolished their authoritarian policies.

Jonathan and I believe the UK vote is a wake-up call for Britain and its leaders, as well as the United States. But the current situation is ominous. Hillary Clinton's foreign policy flaws, from the casual handling of secrets essential to national security, to failure to grasp what is really going on in certain situations, are painfully obvious right now. And what of Donald Trump's undeveloped, unproven, and vague, sometimes even confused, understanding of global issues?

Naïveté about the world and disregard for its member states are the jagged edges of the iceberg sinking the EU "Titanic." That, combined with the core problem of the rejection of God and the Judeo-Christian worldview, and the aloof arrogance and authoritarianism of the Brussels elite have caused the EU ship to not be seaworthy for the tempests roiling the globe.

That's why she may break up on those troubled waters, and why likely there will soon be a rush to the lifeboats.

Who knows how Churchill would have voted. One thing we know is that Churchill was a racist bastard. So he might have voted out. Without the Russians, Churchill could have lost the war. Conjecture of course. Some countries were playing a double game then, like Sweden. Sweden still does it in regard to Julian Assange. The Julian Assange case my have had a certain impact on Brexit as well. People stopped subconsciently trusting their leaders — on the left or the right.

Naïveté first belongs to those intelligent people who believe in god and see Armageddon at every street corners. 

To some extend Brexit is going to strengthen Europe. It should. That's what Gus believes, should the other 27 countries play ball properly. 27 is a great number for making things stronger. 

With Scotland, Gibraltar and Northern Island wanting to "secede" from Brexit and join Europe, this could add a bit of sauce to the puzzle nonetheless. I cannot predict the future, because I know nothing. But should I be Merkel and Hollande, I would embrace one another with greater vigour and get rid of the US cloud. 

The dismantling of NATO would not be a bad start. Create a new EU Force, away from the warmongering Yanks. From then on make peace with Russia and start to make real European progress. Do it soon... before the new US president gets her stripes, because she will want war with something or rather — and will want you to do the dirty work. 

Still be friendly with the British but don't trust them. They never were worthy of the trust of the Europeans, anyway.


by Gus Leonisky on Tue, 2016-06-28 14:02

A number of women have contacted the ABC to say Liberal Party election campaign material sent to their home addresses has changed their surnames to match the man they live with.

Some of the women were married, some were not — all said they had never been registered anywhere under that name.

Kelly Tall said she was married but had never changed her surname, and said she was surprised when she got home yesterday and found a letter addressed incorrectly to her from Federal Liberal MP Nick Varvaris.

"We're married, but we got married in America, so I don't even think that Births, Deaths and Marriages knows about it — we never registered it here," she said.

Ms Tall said she was not pleased by the surname change.

"It's so 1950s that the assumption would be that a man and woman living together would share the same surname … it felt very presumptive," she said.

Melissa Ran said she was also shocked by the letter she and her husband received from Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Liberal candidate Geoffrey Winters.


read more:

by Gus Leonisky on Tue, 2016-06-28 12:32

Despite the Turnbull Government's insistence that it has no intention to privatise Medicare, the facts seem to indicate otherwise. Ash Ghebranious decodes one Government adviser's recent policy explanation.

WHEN TONY SHEPHERD, former chairman of Abbott's National Commission of Audit, appeared on Lateline, to discuss the Coalition Government's policy on health care, he said something in regard to what he called "outsourcing the back processing" thatEmma Alberici missed:

And the system is really clunky and old. You know, we have eight definitions of income within that system. So writing the software to make that work is difficult.

I think there is one group of pensioners  there is only 400 of them in a specific category. I mean, that just makes the system very hard to manage.

What he is implying here, is that somehow the outsourced version of Medicare will not have eight definitions of income or, that one group of pensioners will no longer belong to a specific category.

Here is the clear falsehood. First, he claims that all this is is an outsourcing of the "back processing". Then he implies that the new system would not include categories that the Government had specifically legislated for, including categories of income tax. This is not outsourcing back processing — this is rewriting the entire system and taking clear government decisions out of government hands!

The 400 pensioners that Tony Shepard mentioned is one particular case. Is he referring to spouses of war veterans? Or people with different disabilities?

You see, what Tony Shepherd fails to understand is people are different. They do not fit in boxes. They all have to be treated as individuals, even in a very large system. He seems to see this as inefficient. And clunky. He doesn’t seem to think that people should be seen as people.

So he is not talking about "back processing". He is talking about companies that will decide what is income and what pensioners belong where.


read more:,9166

by Gus Leonisky on Tue, 2016-06-28 12:11


Election live: PM plays down concerns on same-sex marriage plebiscite as Senator pledges to abstain

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has moved to calm concerns over the proposed same-sex marriage plebiscite as a Coalition senator says he will abstain from a vote if the public support gay marriage.

ACT Liberal Senator Zed Seselja has indicated he would sit out of a parliamentary vote on same-sex marriage if a plebiscite carries the measure...


by Gus Leonisky on Tue, 2016-06-28 11:27

The new motto for the New South Wales government is: publica spatium ludis et footus venatus. in short this means that public spaces shall be dedicated to gambling and the footy in its various codes.


And by the way:


James Packer's Crown Casino is to be built at Barangaroo in Sydney after the project was approved by the New South Wales Planning Assessment Commission.

The NSW Government can now give it the green light for construction. 

It will now be built with some modifications to the original plan which will give more public space at the southern end of Barangaroo.

The casino will also be set back 30 metres from the harbour giving extra space for people to walk along the promenade at the western foreshore at the edge of the casino.


The commission said those changes meant "the public good has been given a more equal status with the private good".

read more:


THE "PRIVATE GOOD" using "public land? Nutsos... Congrats James, you win... See toon at top...