Channel Seven and One Nation, Sitting in a Tree

Are some people Channel Seven closet supporters of the One Nation Party? This morning Pauline Hanson had a sit-down interview on Channel Seven's Sunrise program to discuss her return to politics.

I'm probably making too much of this, but it was Channel Seven who bestowed upon Ms Hanson the label of "Star" when she participated in Dancing with the Stars. And another former One Nation honcho, David Oldfield, was declared a "Celebrity" when he took part in Celebrity Survivor.

How nice of Channel Seven to help raise the profile of former One Nation politicians in the quiet period leading up to next year's Federal Election.

ABC News item: Hanson to run as independent

A Tale of Two Brothers

Currently there is a G20 economic summit in Melbourne, where the finance ministers and central bank governors of the 20 most developed nations. The host is Australia's Treasurer, Peter Costello.

One of the items on the agenda is addressing global poverty. The Reverend Tim Costello, Peter's brother, is Chief Executive Officer of World Vision Australia, and Campaign Co-Chairman of Make Poverty History. He's criticised the Australian Government for failing to meet it's commitment to provide 0.7% of GDP as foreign aid. According to Tim Costello, Australia ranks 19th out of the top 22 developed nations when comparing the proportion of GDP given out as foreign aid. Peter Costello prefers to focus on the the raw dollar amount of foreign aid given by the Australian Government, which is an impressive-sounding $3 billion this year.

The media of course is relishing this public debate between to high-profile brothers, for example ...

Costello brothers argue over Australia's aid record

So who would you trust, a politician or a humanitarian :) Personally, when you get down to brass tacks, the Reverend Tim Costello gets my vote.

Here is an overview of the situation, with quotes from an interview on the ABC's Lateline
Tony Jones speaks with Tim Costello

[T]he global plan called the Millennium Development Goals ... we signed up. That is where we promised 0.7 per cent and haven't kept our promise...
Back in 1970 when all the developed nations said we're going to aim to give 0.7 per cent, that's 70 cents in every $100 of GNI. We said yes. At Monterey 2002, at Rio 2000 we repeated it. In August 10th, 2005 last year in Parliament, Alexander Downer repeated and said we are committed to 0.7. The problem is all the other countries, developed countries, have set a timetable and have moved towards it. Britain is at 0.49 per cent and France 0.47 per cent. Even when we get to what Peter has promised, the doubling of aid by 2010, we will still only be at 0.38 per cent whereas the average for all of the developed countries today is 0.45 cents.

We seem to be good at signing these internatinal agreements, but not acting - just look at the Kyoto Protocol, which we've actually signed but declined to ratify.

Another disturbing quote from the interview:

$400 billion approximately has been spent by the US in the Iraq war... The world developed countries only give $100 billion a year to the total one billion people living on less than $1 a day and 30,000 children die each day.

Fortunately the Australian citizens have been happy to take up the slack left by our Government's thrift. We are second only to the Irish in private donations to foreign aid agencies.

Yeah, What He Said. Hang On ...

Former Australian Media Mogul Rupert Murdoch, "Addressing an exclusive black-tie Australian American Association dinner in Sydney, Mr Murdoch urged Australians to resist and reject the hostile anti-American sentiment that has gripped much of Europe." (Murdoch urges Aust, US to maintain strong relations)

We, along with the rest of planet Earth, have had to endure George W. Bush's nightmare of a presidency for six long and painful years (and unless he does an honourable thing we have two more years to endure). So excuse us if we feel a bit bitter to Dubya and his band of global havoc-wreakers. I think Uncle Rupert is over-generalising by labelling anti-Bushism in Europe as anti-Americanism. I'm pretty sure that the feeling in the streets of Europe (and Australia) is not the same type of anti-American feeling harboured by terrorists. If it were, then we'd all be in real trouble.

Uncle Rupert does concede:
"But wars end. Administrations come and go. The Australian people must not allow their perfectly legitimate doubts about one policy or one American administration to cloud their long-term judgment."

Since he also concedes that the Iraq War remains "unpopular" in Australia, is he inferring that we are right to consider the War an unmitigated disaster? If so, I bet John W. Howard was squirming in his seat at that exclusive black-tie dinner.

While on the subject of anti-Bushism, there seems to be a lot of it inside the United States as well ...

Misplaced loyalty to a diminished leader

In the US, anti-Bushism is now downright patriotic. Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi has denounced the President as shallow, deceitful, dangerous and incompetent (sound familiar?). Many widely respected conservatives were actively barracking for the Democrats last week. These included veteran pundit George F. Will, who reckons the Republicans got off relatively lightly "for the party that has presided over what is arguably the worst foreign-policy disaster in US history".

[Matt Price, The Australian]

PS How ironic that George W. Bush finally goes to Vietnam, albeit to attend APEC as the "Leader of the Free World", just as his Iraq War looks set to eclipse the Vietnam War as the US's biggest foreign policy disaster ever.

Solving a Hypothetical Schoolyard Problem - A Simplistic Idea

[This is a daft, er draft]

Let's say you've got a school full of bullies. Bully 1 is in a power struggle with Bully 2. Unfortunately there are lots of Innocent Victims, while the School Authorities are left powerless for some reason. To make matters worse, Vested Interests are supporting the bullies, actively or otherwise. Let's call Bully 1's supporters Interests 1, and Bully 2's supporters Interests 2.

Eventually, after considerable damage, Outside Authorities manages to arrange a truce. But the resentment between the bullies will continue unless the underlying issues are resolved. And innocent people will continue to suffer.

An immediate problem is the dmagae caused by the bullies. Let's sat Bully 1 causes $X of damage while trying to torment Bully 2, and Bully B causes $Y of damage while trying to torment Bully 1. Thanks to the support of Interests 1, Bully 1 was much more efficient, so $X exceeds $Y. In time, shadowy Interests 2 will curry favour with the Innocent Victims by helping pay for the damage inflicted on them by Bully 1. The price for this support is the likelihood of future pain :(

What can we do to fix this? If this happened in normal societies, people should be made to compensate for the damage they do. So Bully 1 should "pay" for the damage inflicted. But alas our hypothetical schoolyard is not normal. In fact, Bully 1 will continue to receive financial support from Interests 1, and Bully 2 will receive financial support from Interests 2. Deeply held suspicions and resentments will continue to fester, and Innocent Victims will succumb to the payoff by Bully 2.

If Interests 1 were sincere in their desire for long-term peace. perhaps they could take the initiative? They could gain the trust of the Innocent Victims by telling Bully 1 that their subsidy will be cut by the net damage they inflicted? The amount would instead be given to the Innocent Victims to rebuild. Effectively Interests 1 will outbid Interests 2. Perhaps Bully 2 would lose the tacit support of the Innocent Victims. Perhaps the School Authorities will no longer fear Bully 2, and therefore be able to keep him in check or even drive him out. Bully 1 would have paid a heavy price too, but in return he may no longer have to be so concerned by Bully 2.