Gillard Distorts History.

Julia Gillard and her supporters try to rewrite history.

Gillard and her supporters continue to play the gender card, in their attempt to mask the incompetence of her Prime Minister-ship, which ultimately led to her demise.

In their latest "woe is me" publications they cry that, because of the way she was treated while in parliament, women are less likely to enter politics. What bullshit. Which sooks did they research? There are many reasons I wouldn't enter politics, but fighting for something I believe in, wouldn't be one of them. You would think that women of substance

would be breaking their neck to enter the fray, so as to right the perceived wrongs, that they blame for Gillard's demise. Everyone in politics is under scrutiny, female and male, and they all cop their share of criticism, just ask Bronwyn Bishop or Amanda Vanstone. 

Let's call a spade a spade, a good part of the reason Gillard got to where she was, was because she was a woman. With the labor party's much vaunted policy, of doling out positions to fill their quota of women in their ranks, regardless of their abilities, and the ground swell among female, and some male, voters, longing for Australia's first female Prime Minister, the time was right for Gillard's ascension. It was time to knife Rudd.

Then it was time for her to perform, and she and her colleagues performed appallingly, and the polls, understandably, plummeted accordingly.

Everything they touched, turned to mud, but instead of worrying about the country, their focus turned inward and they started to attack each other and the press, even though the press were just reporting the facts. Then

Gillard began to get personal, famously attacking Abbott, completely manufacturing the misogyny (The hatred or dislike of women and girls) rant, to suit her political ends. Where was the proof? the man is loved and adored by his family of women, his office is full of women, his preferred 2IC is a woman, and now his preferred speaker is a woman. 

The same press that she now blames for her demise lapped this up with gusto, and supported her to the hilt. That is until she started to sound a little deranged.

Now she's trying to write her own history; of a poor mater, the first to go down for the female cause, but still paving the way for female politicians of the future. What rot. What about the numerous state and local female leaders that went before her and performed admirably? and continue to do so.

Gillard was just not good enough in the job, and the electorate told her so in the polls. Then, the now leader of her party, Bill Shorten, and his fickle mates, turned on her in desperation and punted her, as she had been happy to do to Rudd a few short months before.

If you were to look up the phrase "Changing the chairs on the deck of the Titanic" there should be a photo of the Australian Labor party.

Aspiring female politicians should look elsewhere for inspiration, to successful women like Carmen Lawrence, Bronwyn Bishop, Julie Bishop, Amanda Vanstone, and in other countries, to Hillary Clinton and Margaret Thatcher. There, of course, are many, many more, dating back to the establishment of government in this country. Google it. I promise you you will find far more deserving women of substance to inspire you, they inspire me. 

        

Cowboys Dudded Again

The unbelievable decision, a symptom of a deeper problem?

How can six officials, assisted by the best technology available, miss a tackle count. It is unbelievable, it is indefensible, and an apology is simply not good enough.
I know the NSW officials and supporters of the Sydney based clubs will snicker and label what I'm about to say, a Queensland conspiracy theory rant, but seriously something must be done before the NSW-centric officials and media, destroy the game and send potential new supporters (and some old ones) into the arms of the other codes.
I believe that what happened last night, is symptomatic of a Sydney entitlement culture that is nurtured and kept strong by, not so much the administers of the game, but the people of influence who control them. They are so entrenched in the past glory of the Sydney based clubs, that they won't allow the game to move forward or consider the continued arguments from teams and fans from outside the Sydney area. For them the Sydney clubs are paramount and must be protected and remain relevant at all costs.

But lets deal with last night's Cowboys - Cronulla debacle first. On field referees Matt Cecchin and Henry Perenara unbelievably allowed play to continue after the sixth tackle had been completed. As the Cowboys defended grimly on their line, the referees dismissed calls from Cowboys players, who obviously can count, that the sixth tackle should have been called, allowing Beau Ryan to cross for a try on the seventh tackle.
That six senior officials, both on the field and those manning the technology, could all make such a crucial mistake, is beyond belief. It is unlikely that they were all being paid to allow the howler, so are they all just blithering idiots? Or could it be that they were so subconsciously willing Cronulla over the line, that they let play continue until the desired result transpired? For the life of me, I can't think of another explanation for the error outside those three possibilities, can you?
Whatever the reason, it has wiped the same team from the finals race for the second year in a row. Last year they were denied justice by another howler, allowing Manly to score from a blatant knock-on.

It is important to realise when trying to decide what course of action should be taken now, that the main play-makers for both sides, especially Cronulla, having ball in hand, would have been acutely aware of what number tackle it was. The count determines what type of play will be made next. Therefore by continuing on and claiming the try, Cronulla contributed to the farce and the dishonesty of the try as much as the officials did. In the interest of fair play and honesty, the try should be taken away from Cronulla and the game awarded to the Cowboy's. In law if you are the recipient of ill-gotten gains and know about it you are guilty of a crime. Why should the Cowboys be punished for something they did not participate in. Why should the perpetrators be rewarded. Officialdom didn't hesitate to strip players of points and grand finals when the salary cap was breached by the Bulldogs and Storm clubs. (Both Super League clubs just quietly, and therefore anti Sydney establishment) Why not now?
People may say they are two different matters, but I believe they both amount to cheating in the game and if left unpunished can lead to exploitation and potential game fixing.
Which leads me to the point that a culture is perpetrated in the NRL, which is both stifling the progress of the code, and feeding the very elements in and around the game that the officials pay lip service to stamping out, particularly player behaviour (On and off field).
Players are continually rewarded in the NRL for cheating, and players and coaches in some teams, play do dupe the gullible referees. Cheating is not only condoned but rewarded. How often do you see players stepping to the side of markers, holding the tackler down by the jersey to con a referee, or a player hitting at ball in a tackle to elicit a knock-on. And a relatively new trick of staying down after a tackle if you think you can get a penalty for a head-high tackle. A good remedy for this little trick would be to enforce a head bin of 5 or 10 minutes for a player who believes he is sufficiently injured to stay down, to ensure he doesn't have concussion. How often have you heard commentator Gus Gould congratulating players for drawing a penalty "Good work. He just gained a penalty for his side." He was a head coach and still has major influence on the game today.
I believe that this culture of cheating and winning at all cost, which is encouraged in this game, seeps into the psyche of the player and can carry through into life, creating the problems with drugs, gambling, assault and other problems we see with some of these young men.    

The people of influence, which I talk about controlling the NRL, in my view, are channel 9 and some of their commentators (not all, but you know who they are) and their little group of not-so-prominent comrades. The bias for Sydney based clubs, although they scoff at the suggestion, is apparent from the first whistle and is evident in every phase of the commentary. A prime example in last night's Cowboys - Cronulla game, was when Gus Gould could not stop talking about the minor glitch to the time clock at the end of the match, yet brushed off the seventh tackle try as if it were a minor event. He even continued to carry on about the time keeper glitch into the next match while seemingly putting the try, which cost a team a continuation in the finals series, behind him.
I truly believe that the referees should be very closely scrutinised and the interpretation of the rules taken out of their hands as much as possible, so that there is no room for error. With the rules as they are, and the closeness of the teams today, how hard do you think it would be for a corrupt referee to manipulate the outcome of a game. I am certain that it happens today.. If not because of corruption, because of subconscious bias toward one of the teams. I've seen too often one team penalised for minor infringements while the other team is let go for the same offence, creating try scoring opportunity in the right area of the field or allowing a team to get relief from their end of the field.
I know it sounds "Out there" but look whats happened in cricket.    

The ABC Jumps On The "Poor Kevin" Band Wagon.

ABC  Declares Its Colours For Labour.

One after the other last night ABC programs came out to highlight and ridicule News Limited newspapers for giving Kevin Rudd and the Labour Party bad press. They all seemed to be in sync with Rudd's new campaign direction. (I.E. when you can't get anything right, let's blame everyone else)

Two programs in particular were shameless in their support of Rudd. 

Paul Barry on Media Watch produced a rant that was hard to believe. Totally dedicated to saving Rudd from any criticism, and trashing the reputation of the makeup artist who dared to suggest that Rudd was rude to her. More or less suggesting that she made the whole thing up. Who's watching Media Watch? (The Stag, that's who).

And Q & A was devoted entirely to bashing the Murdoch press, with host Tony Jones virtually giving Rudd minister, and serial leader assassin, Bill Shorten the run of the panel. While trying to cut short any comment from the dissenters. Jones is usually quick to jump on guests who stray from the topic of the question being asked, however last night he allowed Shorten, on many occasions, to drift off into election mode.

Lets just forget the ABC's and Labour's hysterics for a moment and consider the comments that are being made in the press. We are all capable of intelligent thought. When you have the reputation Rudd has for being difficult, if not impossible to work with (Half of the front bench didn't leave 5 minutes before an election for fun), and when a government has two terms to get at least one policy right and fails to successfully implement any, (The latest being the New Guinea Solution.) Don't you think that they are entitled to just a little bad press?

      

When our cricket team performs badly, the news headlines are likely to be something like "Middle order batting collapse. Again Australia fails with the bat." or perhaps "Reports of friction between Clarke and Watson" or "Clarke says Watson like a cancer in the team"

All this and we love our cricket team. You don't see headlines like "Although our cricket team is the best in the world they seem to be a little down on their luck", or "Australia just practicing before they start winning in 2018-19" or perhaps "Australia really going well, it's just that the press are over critical" and neither you should. Journalist are paid to report it like it is.

However, the Labour Party is now on a new election platform, berating the News Limited papers for giving them negative headlines and pointing out their leaders short comings in their tabloids. Perhaps they would be happier with "Kevin is trying to change, give him a chance" or "Give Labour another go, they promise not to have so many stuff-ups this time" or perhaps "Don't worry about Labour's 300 billion dollar debt, I'm sure they'll get it right eventually"

It is very hard to report positively about a party or a leader with few successes to crow about. Rudd talks in his ad campaign about wanting to create more jobs, grow the economy, give us better education etc. etc. All big motherhood statements without substance. In short he insults our intelligence and hopes to get positive media coverage for it. What's new Kevy, whats different from the last 6 years? Why can you do better now? What's changed besides half the team leaving because they can't work with you.

Pulleeasse! The sooner this bloke and his government are in the rear vision mirror the better.