Planets' rivalries presage South China Sea War #usmc

Tonight, and in these coming months, looking overhead on the clear night, all around Earth except beyond the Arctic Circle, you have a fine view of passages of the markers of the eternals in personam, our Earthlings' sibling planets, particularly in order from the west, bright and brilliant Jupiter, some way then particularly ruddy Mars, then over the star nearly as ruddy Antares - the ruby of Scorpius - to the also rosily hued Saturn, she of many beguiling presentations.

Here's a quick look >> Sydney sky

You have to know the personalities of these players' markers: Jupiter, Imperial Father; Mars, Jealous War; Saturn, Enchanting Changeling. And Antares, named so that she is distinguished from Mars. 

To understand the cause of the coming war in the South China Sea, you would have noticed that Mars in past months has readily moved west past and beyond Antares, his twain twin, out of Scorpio apparently heading towards Virgo, entitling the naive to believe in pursuit of the slower westward pace of majestic Jupiter.

In this time, from farther east, steaming towards the underside of Scorpio, bright rosy Saturn has progressed and now appears intent on spending some time having herself compared with ever stellar Antares. The board is two dimensional.

But more recently Mars has turned back towards Scorpio. He seems determined to arrest Saturn's pretension of familiarity with her proximity to Antares. 

A jealous Mars begets war.

That would explain the also recent retour of Jupiter, moving to watch closer the game. Saturn has shifting skirts and volume. Mars blazes.

None of these arguments were true #iraq #howard


Former prime minister John Howard's justification this week on why we went to war against Iraq in 2003 obfuscates some issues.

I was the secretary to the federal parliamentary intelligence committee from 2002 until 2007.

It was then called the ASIO, ASIS and Defence Signals Directorate committee - which drafted the report Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Howard refers to this committee in his speech justifying our involvement in the war.

The reason there was so much argument about the existence of such weapons before the war in Iraq 10 years ago was that to go to war on any other pretext would have been a breach of international law.

As Howard said at the time: ''I couldn't justify on its own a military invasion of Iraq to change the regime. I've never advocated that. Central to the threat is Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons and its pursuit of nuclear capability."

So the question is what the government knew or was told about that capability and whether the government ''lied'' about the danger that Iraq posed.

At the time, Howard and his ministers asserted that the threat to the world from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was both great and immediate.

On February 4, 2003, he said Saddam Hussein had an ''arsenal'' and a ''stockpile'' and the ''illegal importation of proscribed goods ha[s] increased dramatically in the past few years".


''Iraq had a massive program for developing offensive biological weapons - one of the largest and most advanced in the world.''

On March 18, 2003, foreign minister Alexander Downer told the House of Representatives: ''The strategy of containment [UN sanctions] simply has not worked and now poses an unacceptable risk.''

In his speeches at the time, Howard said: ''Iraq has a usable chemical and biological weapons capability which has included recent production of chemical and biological agents; Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons. All key aspects - research and development, production and weaponisation - of Iraq's offensive biological weapons program are active and most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War in 1991.''

None of the government's arguments were supported by the intelligence presented to it by its own agencies. None of these arguments were true.


Liberals bad for honest business

Liberal Party policies are costing Australian jobs and reducing profits for small business owners.

"Employer superannuation has become a nightmare under the Liberal-National Party government," a spokesman says.

"Business owners are expected to spend hours of their time for no reward trying to comply with complicated and unnecessarily burdensome form filling for Canberra," the spokesman said.

"The Liberals are hopeless at understanding business. They parade Malcolm Turnbull as some sort of business wonder kid. The reality is that Turnbull participates in offshore tax avoidance. Turnbull is a part owner behind the 7-11 franchise chain which has been underpaying employees for years.

"When you consider that the Liberal Party is New South Wales has scoffed at and refuses to obey legislation requiring disclosure of political donations, you may appreciate that the Liberal Party regards honesty and fair dinkum enterprise as other peoples' tripe.

"The Baird-Dominello Liberal State Government in New South Wales has been compulsorily acquiring people's homes at under value in the name of infrastructure projects, but abandoning those projects and selling the acquired homes to political donors who sell the properties at huge profits.

"Liberal NSW Senator Sindinos, a close political ally of Prime Minister Turnbull, is refusing to explain his public corrupt behaviour in attempting to arrange a New South Wales water supply contract to a company in which he had shares and which had promised him a million-dollar bonus if the deal went through.

"All public contracts issued by the NSW Liberal Party should be scrutinised by judicial prosecutors," the spokesman said.

"The New South Wales Liberal Party is mired in vice and dishonesty. That should not be tolerated in a society whose ambition is harmonious prosperity from free enterprise and good business."

These fellows are slavers #CasinoMike



The NSW Liberal-National Party is scoffing donations laws. Reasonable critics are abused as "whingers" by Baird bot Rob Stokes. Victor Dominello is telling you that threatening your freehold is good for you. Mark Speakman reckons shooting brumbies in the Snowies is good for the environment, while he's chopping down more trees in the 'burbs. And every drop of fuel squeezes a couple of half tenths of a cent via the ethanol backdoor. Brothels are bigger with Baird. So is gambling. Liquor, well, so long as you've got a Baird licence. Nobody gets a pay rise. Taxes are up. These fellows are slavers.


Elections wound Australia #PR


Here above pictured exemplifies thoughtless government message.

You can see, the message of the bus advertisement is defeated by the appearance of the advertisement. 

The effect of the message is at odds with the intent of the message.

The driver is distracted by the advertisement warning against distraction by a driver.

This instance, of government propaganda which on the surface is at odds with itself, has another lesson to expound.

The outcome of a community action is a substantial proof of the intent of community executives. That is a core principle of enterprise management. If the job is not done, then that employee is not doing the job. 

But further, what employees do in fact will tell you their intent on the job.

Intent is evidenced by action, by behaviour, by doing as well as not doing. 

That's why in New South Wales, and around Australia, MPs and other government connections are obliged to present all their accounts and assets for audit, in demonstration of what they in fact do.

Again, more importantly, the picture demonstrates a mortal weakness of the parliaments and their old divisive parties.

The proponent of the pictured advertisement passes that off as a revenue appropriation in purpose of safe guarding life and limb but it is to the opposite in consequence.

It's not funny to see revenue raised for hospital expenditure diverted to propaganda about building the hospital. Likewise with schools. Etc.

One may reasonably speculate that one among several motives of the advertisement was the desire by government ministers to represent to people that the ministers were genuinely concerned to the welfare of other people.

That's just an advertisement, 'though, you know it needn't be true. 

If that's what it takes to win an election to government, we need a better system of government.

Merely a risk of injurious climate change requires a wholescale and able community response. That isn't available under the 19th century Australian federal system because that system is so dishonest, it is utterly ignorant.