Wendi Deng

Surprise? No mention of the Iraq War in any of the 2020 Summit news items, and the initial report (pdf) only talks of our need to succeed in a global ‘war for talent’. It would appear that this critically important issue was not even discussed, despite the fact that the Security discussions included people like Peter Cosgrove.

Instead, our "best and brightest" just skirted the issue. The group discussing AUSTRALIA’S FUTURE SECURITY AND PROSPERITY IN A RAPIDLY CHANGING REGION AND WORLD made three top recommendations including this:

"To foster a reputation as an effective global citizen, including through making an active and innovative contribution to the resolution of global challenges."

That sort of language is obviously open to any kind of interpretation you want to imagine, particularly in the current Orwellian climate. The devil, of course, is in the details, which include a desire to:

"Reaffirm our commitment to working in international institutions and to the international rule of law."

Well, that sounds good. So will we now confirm our commitment to the Geneva Convention by admitting our culpability in War Crimes, handing those responsible over to the International Criminal Court, and holding a Royal Commission to uncover any relevant evidence?

How do we build a bright future for our children when we are still militarily and politically bogged down in this tragic foreign policy debacle? How do we move on as a country when we refuse to even acknowledge our lingering present, let alone our recent past?

Half the planet now view us as US lackeys and war criminals. A million Iraqis are dead.

We cannot ignore this - we need a Royal Commission into our country's role.

Australians are already being swamped with a media storm of opinions and ideas relating to this weekend's 2020 summit. But how do we move on as a nation when we still have not dealt with our recent past? Will anyone in Canberra be discussing John Howard's War Crimes, for example?

So we battle on... borne back ceaselessly into the past:

SIX former top executives of wheat exporter AWB will face court in July over their alleged roles in the $126 million Iraqi kickback scandal.

The Victorian Supreme Court today set down three days from July 28 for the case to be heard.

In November last year, Commissioner Terence Cole recommended 11 former AWB executives face possible criminal charges.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has launched civil proceedings against six of the executives who face a fine of up to $200,000 for each breach and a possible ban from running any corporation.

AWB former chairman Trevor Flugge, and former managing director Andrew Lindberg - against whom Mr Cole made no adverse finding - are among the executives charged with breaching the Corporations Act.

So now Putin is dumping his wife and shacking up with a 24-year-old.

Alina Kabaeva joins the new breed of underage political concubines-cum-cohorts Carla Bruni and Wendi Deng.

Kabaeva was last year voted the most popular athlete in Russia. You can see why...

The woman in second place was called Irina Slutskaya. Lucky Vlad didn't pick her, eh?

I guess this crap all makes sense when you consider what sort of moral vision drives men like Putin, Sarkozy and Murdoch. Any concept of an afterlife based on karmic payback must be anathema to them, if not a recurring nightmare. So why not grab all the money, power and pussy you can, while you are here on earth? Why not have six-in-a-bed romps on Murdoch's massive yacht, while you all snort cocaine and laugh about the dead in Iraq and Chechnya?

But why do we, the people let assholes like these run our world? No wonder we cannot get broad agreement on long-term issues like disarmament, climate change, and global poverty. For shame. Our grandchildren will pay the price for our celebrity-obsessed apathy.

UPDATE: Lynne Cheney says she likes it when people call her husband "Darth Cheney" because it humanizes him.

Next day:

Moscow Korrespondent admitted that the story had “no factual basis” after Aleksandr Lebedev, the billionaire owner of the newspaper, challenged staff to back up the claims or apologise.

It would be interesting to see whether anyone gets sacked for this - otherwise is could be Lebedev making a point, or Putin flying a kite. But I don't have time to follow Russian politics as well as everything else... My comments on morality remain valid, I think, for many other reasons. So I won't delete this post.

Another day later, the editor is forced to resign and the paper is closed down:

The paper admitted there was no factual basis for its claim that Putin had already divorced Ludmilla, 50, his wife of 24 years, and would marry Kabaeva in June, shortly after standing down as president and becoming prime minister. It cited information from a party planner who claimed to be bidding to organise the lavish reception.

Both Putin and Kabaeva denied the report, which was followed up by European newspapers but ignored by Russia’s media, which do not delve into the private lives of politicians.

“I thought we should run the story to help break the taboo,” said Nekhoroshev. He paid a swift penalty for his daring: the paper, owned by Alexander Lebedev, the billionaire tycoon, ceased publication immediately.

Its parent firm blamed “costs” and “conceptual disagreements with the newsroom” but insisted in a statement that “this has nothing to do with politics and is solely a business decision”.

Few in Russia will believe that. The closure came a few hours after Putin had said during a visit to Sardinia that there was not a word of truth in the story and derided the “snotty noses and erotic fantasies” of the journalists concerned. So protective is the president of his private life that the Russian public has not seen his daughters since he came to power eight years ago.

“Our director came to the newsroom and told us we were being shut down,” said Nekhoroshev, who sounded shaken. “As far as the story is concerned I’ve full faith in my correspondents.”

Kabaeva, who is famed for her “extreme natural flexibility”, had threatened to sue. Her high profile as a sporting pin-up has been enhanced by photographs showing her wearing nothing but furs, but she has spoken of her strong political ambitions.

During Putin’s presidency, the Kremlin has brought all the television channels under its control and become highly sensitive to criticism in the press.

Lebedev, who had ordered his editors to stand up the story with some facts or apologise – they apologised – may now come under further pressure. He also owns Novaya Gazeta, a paper fiercely critical of the Kremlin.

“It just goes to show what a terrible state the Russian media is in after eight years of Putin’s regime,” said Oleg Panfilov, an analyst. “It is so cowed that one just needs to bark at it to see it hide under a table.”

Peter Hartcher has more details on Rudd's dinner at the Sydney Institute the other night. Apparently the MC, Nick Johnson, chief executive of Barclay's Capital Australia, also mis-introduced Rudd as "Mr Ludd", Was it a play on Luddite? Or was he just pissed?

Yesterday, Nick Johnson said he might have been misunderstood.

"It wasn't a right-wing pushback from the Sydney Institute," he said. "It was meant to be an adulatory comment. It's a real challenge these days, defining areas of social change. How does a reforming government describe itself, set itself apart?"

Maybe he's just a compleat wanker? Hartcher reckons Rudd has not set himself apart for Howard at all:

Communism is dead, Rudd seemed to say, yet market fundamentalism is not the alternative. Having described what the reforming centre is not, Rudd then sought to explain what it is: ... a place where the market is balanced judiciously against the society, the private sector against the state, individual initiative against social responsibility.

The tagline is new, but the political space it seeks to describe is not. Indeed, this explanation does nothing to set Rudd apart from his predecessor.

What does set Rudd apart from Howard, according to Hartcher, is his consultative and open style of government, compared with Howard's strident "right-wing identity politics". Of course, we'll see plenty of that consultative style over the coming week, with the fallout from the 2020 summit likely to dominate media commentary. Who's "listening" now, eh?

Are Murdoch media cartoons with Rudd dressed as a Chinese Communist really funny per se? I think not.

In fact, the cartoon doesn't even make much sense until you realise that it's tied to a shill story from "social researchers" at the rightwing Centre for Independent Studies. Here's the story blurb on the main Opinion page:

THE PM's child centres smell of command economies.

Here's a pic, in case they change it:

In fact, the story itself doesn't seriously explore this political angle. It's just an underlying theme:

Let's call them PC centres, for with universal child care at its core, this is a very PC idea...

These centres will weaken the third sector [charities] and strengthen the power of government... Open, democratic societies rely on a strong and vibrant third sector as a check and buffer against government power. In Australia, this is fast disappearing.

These centres will further erode the autonomy of the states within our federal system... Canberra is shifting more power to itself in the name of efficiency.

The stupidity of the authors is fully revealed in the final para:

Before it commits to a huge expenditure such as this, the Government should take a deep breath and tell us the ultimate objective of its family strategy. Is it to get more mums back into work to ease the labour shortage? If so, government-run baby farms may be a good plan.

Disgraceful journalism (yet again) from the Murdoch stable and their corporate sponsors. Bill Leak should know better than to promote such blatantly biased bullshit.

UPDATE: Good to see Tim Dunlop has also picked up on this shilling.

Stephen Smith says our bid for a non-permanent UN seat is at the heart of Australian foreign policy:

"The United Nations is not a perfect institution, but the United Nations and the Security Council remain the premier international institutions so far as international security and peacekeeping are concerned."

Also as far as international law is concerned.

Honestly, what is it with US politicians and the public who let them get away with this shit? TPM has a great video compilation of Doug Feith's ridiculous media appearances. The sheer stupidity of his illogical, self-contradictory arguments is enough to make you gag.

Then Salon has this quote from Joe Lieberman:

"To show you how much things have changed for me, one of my greatest missions this year is to convince Rush [Limbaugh] to support the Republican candidate for President."

Yeah, and Lieberman is (still) a Democrat. You wonder why they can't get troops out of Iraq? Here's John McCain saying we will all look back on Iraq as an "academic argument". And here's how the President congratulates the Pope after a speech on human rights and morality:

"Thank you, your holiness. Awesome speech."

HuffPo has the video. What's really "awesome" is that the Pope didn't verbally tear shreds off Bush, and personally scold him for all his administration's self-evident sins!

Meanwhile, Clinton and Obama gear up for yet another debate, where Hillary's only remaining option is to tear shreds off her opponent. As I emailed Josh Marshall yesterday:

Surely the most important point about any comparisons with previous nomination fights is that this year, sitting on the other side of the equation, you have Bush, Cheney and McCain.

This year, while Clinton and Obama keep landing blows on each other, you have Iraq, Gitmo, gulags and (coming soon) Iran.

This year, while Clinton and Obama argue about meaningless little phrases, you have GOP wiretapping, DoJ corruption, unchecked "executive privilege", and all the rest of it.

This year, while Clinton and Obama suck the oxygen out of the political media, you a global financial crisis, a global fuel crisis, and an emerging global food crisis.

It is most certainly the worst Dems nomination fight ever, simply because of the price being paid to wage it.

It's criminal insanity, isn't it? The stupidity is not just maddeningly frustrating, it's dangerous.