shannonsays.com

"Hello, it's Russell Crowe, here..."

Poor Rusty Crowe.  He's been coping it a bit after engaging in a bit of a fracas with a hotel staff member on Tuesday.

I mean what's a bloke expected to do in the wee hours of the morning in a hotel a long way from home when the concierge is giving him the sort of attitude a celebrity shouldn't have to take? If you're a gladiator and you're holding a telephone, the solution is obvious.... you turf it at their head....

And whilst the UK Sun gave the tale the full tabloid treatment, complete with hilarious graphic recreations you can see here, the front of today's Daily Telegraph had a completely different angle thanks to reporter Matt Frilingos:

"Stretched on the couch watching TV, on the verge of drifting off to sleep, the last thing I expected late on Tuesday night was a call from Russell Crowe," is how Frilingos starts this backgrounder today.

That phone call, which proves that some hotel phones do work,  led to this front-page story in today's Tele, (and you've gotta love the headline!):

HOW MY BRAIN SNAPPED

EXCLUSIVE by MATT FRILINGOS

Shattered actor Russell Crowe has bared his soul to The Daily Telegraph, saying the violent incident that could see him jailed was entirely his fault.

In an exclusive interview, Crowe spoke of his shame over the altercation, but insisted he was "not aiming at" concierge Nestor Estrada when he threw a telephone in the lobby of an exclusive New York hotel. He conceded that the incident may not only see him locked away in a New York jail, but could prevent him from ever working in the US again.

He blamed his state of mind on "the combination of jet lag, loneliness and adrenalin," having just returned to the US after a flying visit to London for the Kostya Tsyzu fight, without wife Danielle. "I'm at the bottom of a well. I can't communicate how dark my life is right now," Crowe said. "I'm in a lot of trouble. I'll do my best to solve the situation in an honourable way. I'm very sorry for my actions."

You can check the full story here.  And some very funny letters in today's Australian

Fleet Street comes to Oz: Media & Schapelle Corby

Keeping with the hysterical media-fed reaction to the Schapelle Corby being jailed for 20 years in a Bali prison...

Anyone would think the infamous Fleet Street editors had moved to Australia to help with the media feeding frenzy and come up with tabloid headlines following the Schapelle Corby verdict.  Rupert Murdochs' News Limited tabloids have been particularly sensationalist.  Here are some of the headlines from The Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph, Herald Sun and Sunday Herald Sun since Saturday:

"INSIDE CORBY'S NIGHTMARE" ... "Day of outrage to show our disgust" ... "Hellhole she'll call home for 20 years" ... "NATION'S FURY" ... "20 years in hell and prosecutors still demand life" ... "Nation's fury at sentence" ... "ALONE AND AFRAID" ... "Family fears suicide" ... "Let's hurt Bali in the pocket" ... "Indonesia must look at grotesque anomolies" ... "A NATION REVOLTS" ... "Fury erupts at Corby jail term" ... "From support to damnation" ... "Horrors await in jail hellhole" ... "Corby's ex-lover backs trade ban" ... "Australia is crying now" ... "Share of hell in grotty cell" ... "Embassy phones run hot with hate" ... 'DAYS OF HATE" ... "Cellmates 'are giving her hell'" ... "National donations backlash"

Over the top headlines like that might sell papers, but they are also proving to be headlines have the capacity to incite readers and fuel something much bigger – like demonstrations, retribution and hatred towards Indonesia.

Now what does that achieve?  An intelligent answer was forthcoming from the guys at Crikey (sub req):

"(The media reaction) achieves only two things: more circulation for newpapers and the end of a workable Australian relationship with Indonesia (and possibly other Asian countries)."

Agreed.  Hysterical headlines and stories like these have nothing to do with press freedom or editorial independence, and it is time draw your weapons people.

The Schapelle Corby Verdict: Why maintain the whinge?

First things first- and as I have said previously- I have no firm view as to whether Schapelle Corby is really guilty or not, and only Schapelle knows that for sure.

But, let's face it it was no real surprise that that she was found guilty.  Despite the media induced outpouring of public emotion and anger that her 20 year jail sentence has caused (even on my own blog), based on everything that was presented during her trial, her conviction was hardly a source of astonishment

But for goodness sakes, some of the rubbish that people are coming out with is beyond crazy.  Let's look at some of the comments that are being frequently made by people following the verdict and sentencing.

"We know she is innocent"
Why are so many people absolutely convinced that she is innocent?  What evidence have they seen that I haven't that gives them so much conviction?  I haven't read through a transcript of her trial and am reliant on the information I have read in the press and online, but I am yet to read anything that provides unquestioning evidence of her innocence.  It seems that just because most of us wouldn't try to smuggle drugs into another country, we assume that someone who looks like us (young Aussie surfer girl) wouldn't be as dumb either.  The media have represented Corby as some kind of girl next door. It is an absurdity to think that common citizens are incapable of criminality.

I even heard someone say that she doesn't "look" guilty.... whatever that means.

If anyone who can provide me with such overwhelming proof of her innocence, I welcome you to give it to me.

"The trial was unfair"
The Indonesian Justice system is different to ours, and thus the trial might seem unfair by our standards, but why does that necessarily make it unfair?  I think the trial was fair.  Defence got a "fair" hearing, as did the prosecution.  The judges made a decision based on the what the heard.  Like it or not, we must accept the that the Indonesian system functions as it does. 
However, I do think that her defence team could have done a better job, but that doesn't mean that the whole trial was unfair, surely?
(I'll have some more to say about her defence later in the week)

"Let's demand our Tsunami aid back"
What a ridiculous, pathetic and counterproductive comment to make.  The reasons why should be evident to anyone with even a modest sense of intelligence.

"The Government should have done more"
Like what?  It is not the role of Governments to interfere in the judicial systems of other nations.  There is absolutely no way we would not tolerate the reverse, ie Indonesia poking it's nose into the way we deal with alleged criminal offenders.  There would be widespread outrage if that happened.

As for calls that the Australian Government should "just bring her home" are naive in the extreme.

She got the normal level of assistance any Australian citizen would receive if they were in her position, and perhaps a little bit more.  Just because it is not splashed across the front page of the newpapers, doensn't mean that the Government did not use every channel, every influence available to them to assist Schapelle.  But at the end of the day, they can't influence a court, whether it is our courts or a foreign court. 

So what more  should our Government have done exactly?  And why are they a source of fault in all of this?  I also think that it's worth remembering that in broad diplomatic terms Indonesia is our friend.

"We should protest and boycott Bali/Indonesia"
Many people have already cancelled trips to Bali, and several protests and rallies are planned for this week.  But why?  As Tony asks, should we persecute the Balinese people over this?  Such a response is the product of the emotional "she's innocent- the trial was unfair" line of argument.  In such a context it makes sense.  But move away from that for a moment and tell me why boycotting Bali is helpful to anything?  It is counterproductive and just portrays us Australians in a pretty poor light.

In conclusion, let me say that I have as much sympathy for Corby as the next person, but I refuse to buy into all the hysteria when it flies in the face of the facts and common sense.

Anyone who wants to counter any of my thoughts is welcome to use the comments area.

The Debate About Drought Relief

Drought is a fact of life in Australia.  But what to do about farmers who are caught up in it all?  Do we help them out, like we always do,via tax payer funded relief packages, do we shrug our shoulders and say "tough" or should we look at doing something else, like trying to work out how the hell we are going to live with this new reality rather than simply hoping for rain?

Unfortunately for us, debate is too hard, so our Governments will just throw some more money at the farmers so that they can service their mounting debts.  That ought to shut them up for a while.

But it is getting a bit ridiculous now.  I mean, how much of a relief is too much? And should we keep giving it anyway?

Well, here's one view:

"Farmers. Fellas. If a little milk bar operator, dry cleaner, plumber, printer, chippy, lawyer, dentist, doctor, engineer, butcher or any other small business goes under there is no government handout available. Those business people are required to stand or fall on the strength of their own planning, operation, diligence, risk assessment, market observation, personal and business insurance protection positions. End of story. Question is, why the hell should we all, as tax payers, keep bailing you out? You know the risks, you enjoy the returns. If you have a business problem, sort it out yourself. Yes, we know the weather can't be controlled. Tell that to the local electrician who cannot get Telstra or some other large service provider to do their job and misses out on a Yellow Pages ad, or whose telephone business lifeline goes down. Nobody steps in to pick them up. At least you have the Farm Deposit scheme – not available to any other taxpayer – where you can defer tax paid on income into those years which are good. Lucky you.

With all the government (read taxpayer) support, technical services, science, management schools, courses, urging, droughts, market responses and media coverage, why haven't you learnt?"

Harsh words. But I sort of agree with the sentiment.  Why should we continually be asked to prop farmers up with handouts?  Why do they deserve more of a leg-up than other businesses?  Of course a very simplistic line of argument that hardly adds much to the whole debate.

Which is why John Williams' article (apparently he is the former boss of the CSIRO's land and water division), in The Age yesterday.

Williams criticised government drought policy yesterday – but also added

“Australians had forgotten the variability of the nation's climate and started farming land that previous generations would not have farmed. Unsustainable areas included parts of the Mallee across Victoria, NSW and South Australia; SA's Eyre Peninsula; and some parts of western NSW and central Queensland.”

It's a healthy debate to have, and a necessary one.  I dunno what the answers are, but I don't think continual, haphazard subsidies and handouts are they way to go.  All that shows is that we have no real plan for dealing with the effects of the extreme fluctuations of our climate.  Which is pretty piss poor really.

We can't drought proof this place, but we should be able to work out a better way of dealing with a future that will be hotter and drier than the past.

Kylie Minogue, Breast Cancer & The Media

Hasn't the media worked themselves into a lather following the news that Kylie Minogue has been diagnosed with breast cancer!  Every major paper in Melbourne (and most in Britain, several across Europe) splashed the news across their front pages.  Melbourne's Herald Sun devoted a ridiculous eight pages to the news.  It was as if she had died.

And of course journo's swarmed en-mass towards Kylie's parents house hoping for a picture or something I guess.  Here is what Crikey had to say about the media situation:

"A press pack of about 20 built up yesterday outside the luxurious Canterbury home that Kylie Minogue bought for her parents for $2.4 million in 2002. And Herald Sun editor Peter Blunden estimates that 12 British journalists are in the air to join what will inevitably become an almighty scrum.

Any chance Kylie's family bunker could have been kept secret at this tumultuous time were dashed by The Age back in 2002 when the supposedly responsible broadsheet ran a story on the purchase on page 3, revealing a picture and the street, which we won't be naming. Blunden this morning told ABC radio that he responsibly declined to run photos of the house last night, but it will be interesting to see if the television cameras can resist the temptation.

Channel Nine's position is particularly interesting given that Kylie's brother, Brendan Minogue, is a Melbourne-based cameraman for the network. Will Brendan deliver 60 Minutes or Ray Martin the exclusive interview?"

I guess only time will answer that one, not that Kylie needs to sell her story as she's already worth close to $100 million and had sold more than $10 million worth of tickets for her Australian leg of the Showgirl tour.

What was a little bit funny was that Jon Faine had a bit of a whinge about the press pack on ABC radio in Melbourne yesterday morning and even asked an oncologist whether the media attention could make Kylie's problem worse. But then he proceeded to cross straight to an ABC reporter outside of Kylie's house!

Cashing in on the Shapelle Corby Circus

The Shapelle Corby circus continues to roll on here in Australia tonight with the screening of a prime time TV special on Channel Nine.  (If you have no idea who Shapelle Corby is, check here).  The program will apparently tell the "untold story" and  a live audience that will offer their verdit at the completion of the show. Like lots of people at the moment, Nine will cash in tonight by pulling a big audience.  What'll it do with the advertising revenue?  How much did it pay the people who will appear in the show?

Who knows, but it is all getting a bit.  Whether Shapelle is some sort of Marijuana Queen or not, I dunno, but  between the swarming mass of reporters, dozing judiciary members, colourful lawyers and the ever expanding number of assorted hangers-on basking in the limelight and baking in the Balinese sun, it's often forgotten that in the middle of all of this is a girl who's life is at stake. It's bloody crazy, and I don't get it.

Let's just imagine the outcry in Australia if the Indonesian government, president and media interests took a such a massive interest in a case of an Indonesian citizen on trial in this country. There'd be a huge outcry of "bugger off" if  was taken up at the highest levels of our Government and our legal systems and processes, with TV crews and the media nosing about, day after day.

I don't think that we are a racist country- far from it, but the fact that many Australians think they can comment on Indonesian justice and legal system without real understanding or concern does smack of racism.

And whilst I have no real personal concern for any of them , I reckon some people would do well to remember that our government wrongly jailed an Australian resident, Cornelia Rau, and wrongly deported another, Vivian Alvarez Solon. But where's the outpouring of concern for the horrible experiences of these women?  Or what if the person on trial  was not a, young, slim, firm bodied, Australian girl, but was some short, fat, plain faced immigrant with an Asian name?

Would we care as much? Would the Nine Network run a prime time special on their experiences?

Doubt it.

At the end of the day, Shapelle Corby strikes me as being quite intelligent, confident and in control of herself.  She knows that she won't spend the rest of her lif in jail.  One way or another whe will come home, and she will be rich and famous for the rest of her life.

(UPDATE:  My take on the whinging following the Corby verdict here)

The Three Amigos: Howard, Bush & Blair

Tony Blair limped home to a third consecutive election victory this week.  So after what was a torrid campaign, we might ask did he lie, did he mislead, and did he take Britain to war in Iraq under false pretenses and without legal sanction?

And who cares?  Does it matter?  Even if he did, it didn't stop him or his Government being re-elected.  Sure his political reputation might have suffered a little, but he's no different  from John Howard and George W, the other two amigos's who took their countries to war in Iraq.  The other two leaders who were criticised over their involvement in Iraq.  The other two leaders who were re-elected by their people all the same.

So what's the message here? 

It seems that if you are managing healthy economy that allows most people to prosper, buggar all else matters.  Politically, you can do what you like.  All three men seem to know through gut feel, prosperity beats principle every day of the week in a modern democracy.

Did the Greens influence the Papal Vote?

Unless you live in another Galaxy, you'll know that we now have a new Pope.  Probably not a new, more liberal Catholic Church, but a new Pope all the same. In annoiting Ratzinger, the vatican has voted for some continuity of John Paul's policies.  This signals an endorsement of the church's most conservative teachings and views.  Couple his views with his snow-white hair, piercing blue eyes and soft German accent (I think he looks a bit sinister), he'll be a bundle of funs that's for sure.

I wonder if those silly, irrelevent wombats over at the Australian Greens had anything to do with Ratzinger's transformation into Pope Benedict XVI? 

Following reports that George Pell, the Arch bishop of Sydney, had emerged as a dark horse to become the next Pope, Greens MP Lee Rhiannon fired off a note  to the Vatican urging the Catholic Church to deny the ultra conservative leader a promotion to head the church…

Who the hell she thinks she is has got me stuffed.  Silly old duck isn't even a Catholic.

I await the the letter from the new Pope urging the Greens to dump Lee Rhiannon...

Breaking Election Pledges- breach of contract?

And politicians wonder why we don't trust them....

Let's say that  you or I made someone an "absolutely rock-solid ironclad commitment[s]", to deliver something such as the election pledge by the Health Minister, Tony Abbott, to maintain the Medicare safety net.  And then that person accepts our offer and gives us something as consideration, (like a vote!) in return, but we fail to deliver on our promise, what would happen?

We would be carted of to court and sued for breach of contract, that's what.  Especially when the terms of the contract where delivered with such a clear guarantee.

But when the Government came out this week and did a u-turn on thier election pledge, all they had to do was shrug their shoulders, issue an apology, and we all have to get on with it.  Stiff.

Given the circumstance of the projected expediture blow-out the policy needed to be tweaked.  And this isn't the first time that politician has been caught saying and doing anything to get elected, and then once in power changing their mind.  And why wouldn't they?  There is no form of recourse for us until the next election (still three and a half years away), so they can do what they like.  Of course it sucks, it is wrong, and is totally inconsistent with what would happen to you or I if we behaved the same way in our business dealings.  But that is the way it it.

As an aside thought, I reakon the whole Safety Net idea was poor policy to begin with, but not one to be defeated easily, Tresurer Peter Costello had this to say on AM during the week:

STEPHANIE KENNEDY: Older Australians are high users of the Medicare Safety Net, and that is obviously blowing out from around $440 million to $1 billion. Hasn't the government completely miscalculated the cost of the Medicare Safety Net?

PETER COSTELLO: No we haven't. We've actually put down in our estimates reasonable anticipation of those costs. But since you're on the question, let me remind you of this. With the population aging, with the draw down on services four times higher for over 65s, the policy that was put forward at the last election, the so called Medicare Gold policy – free health care – must have been the most irresponsible policy ever announced in Australian history. Fortunately nobody ever had to hang around to see its implementation.

STEPHANIE KENNEDY: But Labor also said at the time that the Medicare Safety Net would blow out to around $1 billion and it has done. What will you do to rein it in?

PETER COSTELLO: Well, as I've said now, in the last three questions, the answer in Australia is to get our health services on to a sustainable basis.

In other words, if you think this is bad policy, you should have seen Labor’s.

Nothing though on how the doctored Medicare Safety Net will still cost twice the original estimate. Nothing on how the clumsy idea of a Safety Net wouldn’t even be needed if Medicare worked properly – or if levels of bulk billing were maintained.

But like I said.  Stiff.

Gambling on our Health

Last week the Victorian State Government announced that it is going to clobber the pokie machine industry  with a 100% tax increase that will bring in an extra $45 million a year.  Now usually a yax hike makes people groan, but the clever spin here is that the revenue will be used to help fix waiting lists, staff numbers and services in our cash strapped hospital system.

There are two ways of looking at this, I suppose.

The first is that Victorias gambling companies (Crown, Tabcorp and Tattersalls) are sin companies that are making tidy profits from their heavily protected monopoly or duopoly gaming licences, so they deserve to get slugged.  And in any case the new levies will  be tax deductible so Canberra will share in the pain.  Plus the money is going towards hospitals, and that's gotta be a good thing, right?

Well, I disagree. 

At the end of the day, these are real businesses, with real shareholders, real employees and real customers.  They won't just sit around and let a doubling of a tax hit the bottom line profits.  They will work out how to make more revenue to cover it; ie, they will work out how to get more button pushing zombies into their garish venues, and then work out how to get them to spend more, by  cranking up the number of high-denomination poker machines to recoup more money.  This of course will ultimately hit problem gamblers even harder.   And  they are the ones that can least afford it.

But more than that, I don't like the fact that we are have such an unhealthy realiance on gambling to fund our hospital systems.  As State Opposition leader Robert Doyle noted, we must be in a pretty desperate situation if the plight of our hospital system is dependant on becoming more reliant on gambling.

What do others think?  Is this unique to Australia, or is gambling used to prop up public services in other parts of the world?