LIFE AND TIMES OF TYCOON MURDOCH

I was going to write something about Rupert Murdoch and the current

scandals.

See this for a view on Murdoch:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/07/b122948.html

Murdoch is an 80 year old billionaire with a conservative political agenda, who

uses his media companies to control and harass. He could pick up the phone

and talk to the president or prime minister of any country, and seek to

influence, chastise or threaten.

Now he seems entirely without friends. I have not heard one person speak in

defense of Murdoch in regards to the current scandals. Some may have done so,

but I have not heard them do so, and none I doubt who were ever independent.

Rather than a kind of intimidating figure, I see Murdoch as : a sad figure: an old old man, who despite his wealth

and power, seems to have learnt nothing of real import in his eighty years; and a frightened man, so desperate never

to allow anything, anyone, or any idea, to threaten his money and influence, and so frightened that any

measure, any deception, can be rationalized and be wholly justified.

He is an old old man, a sad old man.

The next few weeks and months will be interesting.

Should he lose his power and influence, he will simply be . . . a sad old man who was learnt nothing of real import in

his eighty years.

And all is as it was always going to be.

SELLING ANOTHER BIG LIE

Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, was in Brisbane

yesterday, addressing a community meeting on the new Carbon Tax.

Some people criticised the PM for being a liar, that before the last

Federal Election she unequivocably ruled out a carbon tax, but

then shortly after being elected, she announced that the

government would introduce such a tax.

Can we not now take each other at our own word?? Is it unfair now to take another person at their word??

Gillard made the observation that everyone should be entitled to change their mind. And for sure in principle

that is true, and I for one would encourage people to make up their own minds,  to be open to alternatives

and contrary evidence.

But Gillard is being morally fraudulent. She has obfuscated, saying she is for a cleaner and greener Australia, and

if you criticize her for her appalling pre-election deception, or the carbon tax itself, you are therefore not in

support of a cleaner and greener Australia.

Today, Gillard gave an address to the National Press Club and momentarily lost her composure when speaking

about her feelings: “It doesn’t come easy to me to expose my feelings as I make these decisions. I was the shy girl

who studied and worked hard,” and that tough decisions have to be made. For sure tough decisions have to be made,

but she has built her argument on a lie, and now seeks to justify her argument by cynical political strategies.

Gillard has still not explained her change of mind: everyone is entitled to change their mind, I agree with that, but

there has been no explanation from Gillard as to why she changed her mind, which leads one to believe that her

pre-election promise not to introduce a carbon tax was simply a lie, a deception.

If I opposed a carbon tax on the grounds of insufficient scientific evidence on the causes of global warming, but

then the main international scientific critics came out and said that there now was sufficient scientific evidence,

then this would be why I changed my mind.

But between Gillard’s pre-election no carbon tax commitment, and her post-election imposition of a carbon tax,

a few months, there was no major change in the scientific evidence or interpretation, and Gillard has never

alluded to any.

The Australian Prime minister is clearly two things:

A liar, and

A cynical political operator.

But the big questions is:

Does Gillard’s contemptible behaviour represent the behaviour of a minority, or a majority, of Australian politicians??