Kim Beazley says he wants to be even tougher on terror than John Howard.Is this man Kim Beazley congenitally stupid or what?
IN a dramatic reversal in the debate over anti-terror laws, Opposition Leader Kim Beazley (pictured) will move to amend the measures in Parliament – to make them even tougher.
In a bid to make Prime Minister John Howard appear weak and incompetent on protecting Australians from terrorist attack, Mr Beazley intends to strengthen provisions against incitement to violence.
But Mr Beazley is likely to face a fight inside his own party, where it is estimated a third of the caucus has serious concerns about the draft laws.
Following a week of intense debate between Mr Howard and state leaders, the PM has sent revised legislation to the premiers and chief ministers, whose consent is needed to pass the laws.
ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope, who created a furore by posting the Government's secret proposals on his website, yesterday revealed there had been changes, notably in relation to so-called "control orders" governing terrorist suspects.
Under the changes, a control order granted to security forces would have to be subsequently confirmed by a court.
Mr Howard has already agreed to amend controversial "shoot to kill" powers in the Bill but Mr Stanhope said there was still not enough judicial oversight.
The issue will be debated by the Labor caucus on Tuesday but Mr Beazley has already decided the legislation is too lenient on those inciting terrorist violence.
Under the proposed laws, people urging violence will be targeted only if the subsequent violence "threatens the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth".
Mr Beazley argues that under this provision it would be difficult, if not impossible, to convict anybody for incitement.
I guess he's saying, "Fair crack of the whip, mate," with undue emphasis on the word 'whip'. Somebody ought to whip the daylights out of him, right out of Parliament. It's pathetic.
UPDATE:
This came in from Walk-Off HBP:
The Prime Minister has defended proposed shoot-to-kill laws, saying that in the heightened security environment the shoot-to-kill policy would only be used in situations where police freak out. “The world changed on September 11,” Howard said. “Before then I would have needed a good reason to pass draconian legislation like this.”As spoofs go, it's pretty funny.
Mr Howard said that the laws are essential for making Australia safer. “The power to kill civilians is vital in the fight against those who threaten civilian safety,” he said. “We simply can’t afford to be soft on things that have an outside chance of being Terror.”
However, the laws have proven unpopular with the public – registering low approval amongst women, the young, and an incredible 0% approval from Brazilians who enjoy walking along the street in parkas, minding their own business and not being shot in the head.
State Premiers have also cast doubts upon the laws’ effectiveness, pointing to the continued presence of terror in Victoria, despite the Victorian Police’s use of unofficial shoot-to-kill laws for years.
Opposition Leader Kim Beazley initially opposed the new laws, instead advocating for a “shoot-yourself-in-the-foot-to-kill” policy. But when internal polling revealed that voters perceive him as soft on terror, Mr Beazley immediately caved in to the government’s wishes, and is now advocating for police to be given the power to shoot-to-kill terror suspects twice.
I read today's entry by David Brin in his blog who argues, why we must liberals label themselves 'anti-war' in order to combat the war in Iraq? Why can't they simply say they are 'anti-stupidwar'?
In he same spirit, I'd like to ask, why Kim Beazley fears being labelled 'soft on terror' when clearly it's just as stupid a piece of rhetoric as the 'anti-war' label? Why can't he simply say, "No, I'm anti-knee-jerk response"?
Instead he says he's more doubleplusgood on anti-terror than John Howard.
Also, as my friend PJ pointed out today, "What happened to this stuff about not letting terror change our lives? In reality we're turning our lives into little cages of fear which is exactly what the terrorists wanted."
Damn straight.
So yes, John Howard and Kim Beazley are gormless little prats undeserving of their labels as 'leaders', who are giving into the terrorists by knee-jerking all the way to fascism. Nauseating.
The ALP? It's Hopeless, Really
The ALP left faction is allgedly bringing the heat on to Kim Beazley over his response to the anti-terror legislation. The thing is, it's sounding really un-convincing. After all, the ALP haven't exactly been very vocal about this issue in the last 10 days when most of what counts for the Australian intelligentzia has been howling to deaf ears.
So somehow Kim Beazley is trying to have anti-terror laws tied up with racial vilification laws. To think this man is the alternative to John Howard sort of makes one cringe. The Leadership of our nation has sunk to a low level not seen in the last 30 years. Maybe, it's worse than that. Maybe , the worst ever.
KIM Beazley faces an internal Labor Party revolt on two fronts today over failing to argue against "draconian" anti-terrorism legislation and unveiling his own proposal to ban books that promote hate and violence.
A meeting of the ALP's national Left faction passed a motion yesterday warning state premiers and Mr Beazley that proposed anti-terrorism laws could breach the ALP's platform.
The meeting, attended by numerous state and federal MPs, including Julia Gillard, Kim Carr and deputy leader Jenny Macklin, demanded that "all ALP state premiers, chief ministers and members of the federal parliamentary Labor Party act consistently with the ALP's platform and Australia's international law obligations".
Senior ALP figures were also exasperated by Mr Beazley's decision to announce his own vilification laws yesterday, saying he was "mangling the message".
The proposal to link the terrorism laws with his separate reforms to ban racial and religious vilification also angered colleagues because the confusing laws had not been discussed with the front bench.
"Getting up and suggesting the Jewish community of Australia should be wiped off the face of the earth would be illegal, absolutely," Mr Beazley said in Canberra yesterday. "There would be appropriate fines and, if severe enough, appropriate incarceration."
Prominent Labor frontbencher Peter Garrett also raised concerns that the "dog's breakfast" of laws could be used to target writers and artists.If that didn't give you a profound sense of confusion in the ALP ranks, I don't know what would.
"Our bedrock rights to free speech, to due process under law, to confidence that the separation of the judiciary from the executive will stand against the arbitrary exercise of power are all in danger of being swept away by this Government," he said.
However, Victorian Labor MP Michael Danby said support for tougher terror laws was widespread in the community, including in his own inner-city electorate. "Melbourne Ports has lost three people to suicide bombers," he said.
"Even in small-l liberal, inner-city Melbourne, people want to be secure from terrorism. But the federal opposition and the Labor premiers will only agree if there are appropriate safeguards on police use of lethal force and control orders."
Opposition homeland security spokesman Arch Bevis said that the ALP had already agreed to a statement of principles that would include strong legal safeguards.
"There has to be a genuine judicial review, not rubber stamping by courts," he said.
"It's the prospect that Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi could be found guilty of sedition under these laws."
Tasmanian Labor MP Duncan Kerr said he had sent a submission to all state attorneys-general and senior Labor frontbenchers over his concerns.
Mr Howard said he wasn't wedded to introducing the bill on Melbourne Cup day, but he did want to get the bill through parliament before the end of year and certainly effective by the March Games in Melbourne.
He was backed by NSW Attorney-General Bob Debus, who said the laws should be in place for the Games, but not so quickly as to get it wrong.
Moneyball Update
While we're on the issue of leadership, here's an interesting one today.
One of the characters featured strongly in 'Moneybaall was Paul DePodesta who was assistant GM under Billy Beane in the Oakland Athletics' ball club, who then went on to be the GM of the LA Dodgers 2 years ago. After 2 extreme seasons, one in which the LA Dodgers made the play-offs and one in which they fell out of contention due to injuries, he has been sacked.
“Our high expectations were not met,” McCourt said at an afternoon news conference at Dodger Stadium. “I like Paul. He has many positive attributes. It was difficult, but at the end of the day, that’s my job, to make difficult decisions.”The general consensus over at the Baseball Think Factory is that he did a middling job but 2 years really isn't long enough to assess the long term impact of his stewardship. It does however seem very apparent that he was hounded out of town by a hostile press and that perhaps he was not a very good people-skills manager.
Saying the team needs a strong foundation, McCourt listed among his criteria for a new G.M. the ability to evaluate player talent, communication skills, and experience.
---
McCourt hired DePodesta after buying the team in January 2004 from News Corp. The Dodgers won the NL West title in his first season, but DePodesta riled fans by trading popular catcher Lo Duca and two other players at midseason.
“I met with Paul DePodesta this morning and let him know that the Los Angeles Dodgers were moving on,” McCourt said. “I thanked him for his contributions.”
DePodesta shook up the team last winter following the division championship season, and their 71-91 record this year was the Dodgers’ worst since 1992 and second-poorest since moving to Los Angeles in 1958.
“I truly believe that this franchise is poised to begin the next great era of Dodger baseball,” DePodesta said in a statement released by the Dodgers. “I have a tremendous amount of affection for the players, staff and front office, and I wish everyone the best of luck.”
Rich Lederer has this article questioning the Dodger move to dump Paul DePodesta
Here are 32 questions -- 32 seems like a good number when discussing the Dodgers -- that are on my mind:So much for that experiment. We'll never know the results now.
1. Why did McCourt hire DePodesta in the first place?
2. Why did he give him a five-year deal and then fire him in less than two years?
3. Did he hire him because Moneyball was in?
4. With the White Sox the new World Series champs, is Moneyball now out and Smartball--or whatever the hell you call the newest, latest, and greatest way to win--in? Did that influence the McCourts?
5. Why wasn't leadership, now a "very important characteristic" in the search for the new GM, not valued 20 months ago when DePo was hired?
6. Ditto for being a "good communicator" and finding "someone with the experience to do the job?"
7. Why do executives go a complete 180 when they hire a replacement for the guy who failed previously?
8. If experience is so important, why do the McCourts think they know how to run a baseball team?
9. Why don't the standards they hold to others apply to themselves?
10. Just why is Jamie McCourt Vice Chairman and President?
11. Other than being married to Frank, what are her qualifications?
12. Who else interviewed for that job?
13. Was Drew McCourt really 23 years old when he was appointed Director of Marketing last April?
14. When did the Dodgers become Sly and the Family Stone?
15. If leadership, being a good communicator, someone with experience, and having a "keen eye for baseball talent" are so important, why didn't McCourt hire Pat Gillick rather than DePodesta?
16. What would Gillick bring to the table today that he didn't back when he interviewed for the same position in 2004?
17. If McCourt "wants Dodgers here," then how does Gillick fit into that goal?
18. What makes Bobby Valentine such a great choice?
19. Would Gillick or whoever becomes the new GM truly pick the next manager or will there be an understanding that Valentine is the manager in waiting?
20. Has anyone pointed out that it took Valentine more games (1,704) to reach the playoffs (in 1999 with the Mets) than any other manager since divisional play began in 1969?
21. If Tommy Lasorda is so fond of Valentine, why didn't he hire him as one of his coaches after Bobby retired in 1979 and before he became the manager of the Texas Rangers in 1985?
22. If Lasorda's comment that Orel Hershiser's "not qualified" for the GM position is correct "because he has never done it," then would any of us have ever gotten a promotion to a new position? Based on that logic, wouldn't we all still be cavemen?
23. Why would a "special advisor" be so widely quoted in the press? Aren't such confidantes supposed to be more behind the scenes types?
24. Has Lasorda ever done anything behind the scenes, other than snipe about guys like DePodesta, Fred Claire, and Bill Russell?
25. How did the Dodgers perform the year Lasorda was named special advisor?
26. Is he not to blame for the Dodgers' problems this year or is that Al Campanis' fault, too?
27. Has there ever been anyone who clamored the spotlight more than Tommy?
28. As long as Lasorda is in a position of power, why would anyone other than one of his cronies or a McCourt family member want to become the next GM or manager?
29. If McCourt is so fond of staying the course, why did he let DePodesta go?
30. When did that course begin? In 1955 when the Dodgers won their first championship? In 1958 when they moved to Los Angeles? In 1977 when Lasorda became manager? In 2004 when McCourt bought the team? Or a few weeks later when DePodesta was hired?
31. Is baseball the only business in the world in which a degree from Harvard is a negative?
32. Wasn't the late and great Branch Rickey the forefather of the use of baseball statistics in player evaluation?
Please help. I need to know the answers to all of the above questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment