This article from November, The Dumbest Idea In The World, illustrates well what is wrong with modern business practices.  And while dealing with the American market the malign influence of shareholder value is evident in Australian business. 

A good recent example was the wailing and gnashing of teeth that met JB Hi-Fi's profit downgrade in December. The company is in no danger of going under and reading the article closely finds that it is still in a good position. The stock market reaction was bizarre in terms of how the company is positioned in real terms. However in stock market terms it was a disaster. This shows how far from reality stock market reactions can be. 

You can see the destructiveness maximising shareholder value in the fortunes of BlueScope Steel and Qantas. Retail (Harvey Norman, Myer) etc have the same problems. It is true that all those companies face external pressures. However the common factor is that they have failed to properley manage for such external forces, made poor business decisions as a result and in the spirit of modern free market capatialism, sought hand outs from the govement (see this article on BlueScope for example). 

Australia does seem to have an infestation of lazy business people in boardrooms. A good example of this is how discussion of productivity seems narrowly focused on industrial relations issues rather looking at how to improve overall business processes. 

There are good business people in Australia. I've worked with some. Others are quietly ensuring their businesses grow and have a foundation for the future. A common element is they understand leadership rather than management. 

However the rent seekers are never going to be quiet or learn as long as they can remove the responsibility for their failed decisions to the government or their employees. 

They told me you could punch, Tony!"

To compare Tony Abbott to George Foreman is not a flattering rememberance of Abbott's student boxing days. It is more in recognition of the famed Rumble in the Jungle fight in 1974 where Foreman, on all out attack, fell to the smarts of Muhammed Ali. 

Over the past few months (and I've stated this a few times in Twitter) I'm come to thinking that Labor's tactics seem to have an element of Rope-a-dope in them. I'm not sure if this was the result of intent or just an unintended good result but Abbott, like George Foreman after the fifth round in Zaire, is finding his political punches are losing strength. Labor, having aborbed the early punishment, are responding with powerful punches of their own such as Anthony Albanese in Parliament on Wednesday. 

"They told me you could punch as hard as John Howard!" 

Everything government policy that Tony Abbott has stood against has come to pass. His bravado has shown to be nothing as the Prime Minister has deftly navigated the dangerous shoals of the minority government to pass some important, albeit flawed, legislation. With Peter Slipper taking the Speakers' job (itself a big fuck you to Dr No), Abbott's constant negative belligerence is destroying his authority both inside and outside the party room.

That is not to say Labor will have a free ride. Federal Labor still has that sense of just as they get into a winning position they will find a way to score an own goal. But their fortunes are on the rise. Ignore the polling. Two years out from an election the numbers have no real significance.

With Harry Jenkins back in the party room, Labor must resist the temptation to try and sideline Wilkie. That would be a mistake and undermine the Prime Minister's relationship with the independants. On the Liberal side given the internal struggle over the direction of the party, I really do wonder if Malcom Turnbull really is the Messiah some think him to be and whether he could hold the party together. 

"Is that all you got, Tony?"

David Penberthy uses a bloke called Ken to illustrate what he thinks is wrong with the SBS show Go Back Where You Came From.

Ken, who works as a bank teller and lives with his wife and two kids in Campbelltown, about 50km southwest of the Sydney CBD.

Ken says he has nothing against multiculturalism and has no problem with immigrants and refugees - after all, there are more non-Anglos living in his neck of the woods than there are in inner-city Sydney - and his son's under-12 soccer team is a veritable United Nations with kids from seven different countries making up the squad.

Huzaah for Ken!

Ken just thinks that we need to have some kind of structure to our immigration program and that people can't turn up willy-nilly.

A lot of his friends are the kids of migrants and they have a particularly strong view, having arrived in Australia through the proper channels, that we can't have a disorderly system of unauthorised arrivals where we know nothing about the background of people who arrive here illegally.

Well Ken, if Penbo and The Daily Telegraph had been properly doing their job you'd understand that people on boats do not arrive here "illegally." As refugee or asylum seekers they have a right under Australian and International law to enter Australia seeking asylum. So they are not illegal. In fact, the majority of illegal immigrants arrive by plane.

And while asylum seekers may not arrive with documentation they are subject to background checks. 90% have been found to be have valid claims.

Ken also reckons that people who come here should share our values - free speech, democracy, the rule of law, reward for effort, giving women a fair go.

What a top bloke Ken is. I'm not sure what that has to do with asylum seekers? Unless Ken thinks somehow they don't share our values. If they didn't why would they risk so much to come to Australia? And if they are indeed our values why should we not extend them to asylum seekers?

The other thing that worries Ken is unchecked population growth. He feels like he is working his backside off, earning just under $70,000 and paying off a mortgage that consumes almost 30 per cent of his income. He spends half his life stuck in traffic, paying through the nose for toll roads which often feel more like car parks.

In his part of Sydney the infrastructure hasn't really kept pace with the suburban sprawl. He wonders where we are going to put everybody and at what point we will declare that Sydney is pretty much full and can't just keep absorbing more people, regardless of whether they're from Kabul or Coonalpyn.

Asylum seekers make up barely 1% (if that) of Australia's total immigration. And, solely for the sake of argument, if unchecked population growth is a concern then asylum seekers aren't going to make one bit of difference.

The issues in Sydney with regards to infrastructure have nothing to do with asylum seekers. Lack of vision from Labor when in power with a focus on roads has totally buggered up transport in Sydney. Couple that with lack of affordable housing creates a situation where a great many are pushed out the fringes of the metropolitian area but need to travel into the CBD or surrounding areas to work. Whether 0 asylum seekers or 5000 enter Autralia this year means nothing in regards to the issues Ken is concerned about.

If all these views make Ken a redneck, a hillbilly or a racist, then something has gone wrong in Australia.

I'd say Ken is ignorant and what has gone wrong in Australia is well, people like you Penbo. Instead of educating Ken with easily verifiable facts you pander to his ignorance. As you go on to say:

But I would argue that it also has at its centre a pretty unpleasant assumption that the great mass of Australian suburbia is bleak-hearted and prejudiced and in need of some kind of formal re-education to expunge the racism that underpins its sentiments on migration

Putting the issue of racism to one side, your article and the views of Ken indicate that indeed some kind education is required on the issue of asylum seekers.

Surely Penbo with your access as a journalist you can do more to assist people like Ken in educating them rather than simply pandering to their ignorance for to get in some cheap shots?

Australian scientist Peter Doherty has written a wonderful letter in today's SMH that takes apart the odious arguments of Peter Phelps, the NSW Liberal Upper House whip.

Scientists have duty to tell it like it is

The remarks attributed to the state government whip Peter Phelps suggest he has a very selective reading of history in his global attribution of totalitarian/nazi tendencies to scientists (''Upper house whip under fire for Nazi slur on scientists'', June 3).

He might acknowledge, for example, that the Nazis were a democratically-elected, extreme-right populist party who murdered, or forced into exile, large numbers of scientists. He might recall that Stalin's rejection of evidence-based genetics condemned legitimate scientists to the gulag and led to massive starvation in the Soviet Union. He might also reflect on the fact that a group of seismologists has recently been indicted in Italy for failing to give adequate warning about a major earthquake.

Publicly funded researchers, and that includes pretty much all climate scientists, have an absolute obligation to inform both the community and political leaders when they find evidence of changes that could potentially compromise human well-being and civil society.

The scientists I know value living in a pluralist democracy and just want to get on with running their research operations, not the country.

But, so long as they have major concerns, they have to speak up and, as best they can, put the evidence in front of political leaders and the broader Australian community.

Peter Doherty Nobel laureate 1996, University of Melbourne

Australian born US naturalised media moguls worth about $6 billion - Has media empire who faithfully echo owner's opinion on anything. 

Australian mining magnates worth a few idle billion dollars - Poor hard done by battlers so downtrodden they need to buy a TV station to be heard

Australian actors worth tens of millions of dollars/year - Not allowed to have an opinion on anything as they are elites. 

Right wing radio shock jocks worth a few million dollars/year - Allowed to have an opinion on anything even if totally wrong (which is part of the job)

Battlers earning $200,000/year - Experts on welfare distribution in Australia

Teachers earning $60,000/year - Well off bludgers living in opulent mansions that have too many holidays so don't listen to them. 

Single mothers earning $50,000 (if they are lucky) - Don't listen to them either. Just shame them as they deserve. 

Long term unemployed ($30,000/year) - Shouldn't have opinions as they should be out finding a job. 

Bloggers earning whatever - Only allowed to hold opinions that don't upset traditional media.

Twitterers earning whatever- Only if it is about what someone had for breakfast. 

It is not online but Miranda Devine today in the Sunday Telegraph (22/5/2011) had a go at those attacking the victim and defending Dominique Strauss-Khan over allegation of rape. An admirable stance that I can't fault. Except for Miranda's attempt to make this a left versus right issue. She says: 

Again we see the world split in two - between narcissistic left-wing elites who believe justice is flexible and people like them should be able to do whatever they like and the rest of ouse who believe in equality under the law and that vulnerable people should be protected from the powerful.

And then after having a go at Bernard Henri-Levy (whose political positions seem to run both left and right), Miranda has a go at Ben Stein who is as much of a left-wing elite as Bob Brown is a right-wing shock jock. As to whether the narcissistic tag applies to Ben Stein you can make your own mind up. 

Miranda's problem is that everything needs to be seen through strict notions of left and right. The potential for a good discussion on how victims of rape are treated in the media is ruined by needless political framing. 

If Miranda wants to see how the left-wing elite has reacted to the the stupidity of Henri-Levy and Stein she just needs to look to Jon Stewart. 

Don't know if anyone else has made the connection but the really stupid debate about over if $150,000 is "rich" is reminiscent of the debate concerning the extension of the Bush tax cuts in the US which revolved around the argument whether earning $250,000 qualifies you being rich. I'm sure that the fact News Ltd media were involved in driving both debates is simply a coincidence. 

The funny thing about the US debate was how after all the hand wringing over how people in $250,000 are struggling, there was a remarkable moment of downwards envy when teachers, who earn considering less than $250,000, were taken to task for their "greed" and apparent wealth. 

The difference between Australian and the US is that Australia does not seem to that mentality where the the poor or lower middle class see themselves as the temporarily inconvenienced rich in waiting. An idea that at least to me explains why so many people in the US seemingly vote for policies that are against their own economic interest.

Polling shows that marginal voters at least consider the debate over if $150,000 is rich as a non-issue. 

Hopefully this debate will soon die a natural death when the next shiny thing of little importance attracts the media's attention. 

Part of my job is to assist people with finding jobs (No, I'm not with Centrelink. Nothing like it). Once you hit your 50s and especially if you are unskilled and also a woman, the job market really has nothing for you. It gets worse as you get older. So why is the Gillard government now considering cracking down on the over 55 job seekers? I have no idea. It doesn't make sense. Job seeking is incredibly tough when many obstacles at that age. 

"However, this is not a level playing field. Older people experience structural barriers in the labour market and face endemic and pervasive discrimination, despite legislation meant to protect against prejudice..

"A recent [Australian Bureau of Statistics] report, Experiences of People in the Labour Market, sheds light on the significant barriers faced by older workers. The main difficulty in finding work for people aged 45 years and over was 'considered too old by employers' at 17 per cent.

"Older workers are consistently and disproportionately represented in the number of discouraged jobseekers who just give up looking because the rejections are too much to bear."

Prime Minister, if you want greater participation from the over 55s in job seeking then about about reducing the structural barriers rather than proposing the ineffectual political solution of "getting tough."

Lone Pine - The Mark of Cain 

05_Lone_Pine.mp3

(download)

Click here to download:

05_Lone_Pine.mp3 (6.53 MB)

Lest we forget. 

Strange article from the Herald Sun on the evidence for Jesus resurrection. A bold statement to begin:

EASTER is a dangerous time for atheists. Because Easter puts the spotlight on reality and the evidence for the resurrection.

And what is this evidence? Basically appeals to authority and hopping on the roundabout of circular logic. Especially: 

Meanwhile, millions of Christians will celebrate the resurrection today as an act of faith. If there had been no Easter 2000 or so years ago, it would be a sham celebration.

As the apostle Paul admitted: "If there be no resurrection of the dead then is Christ not risen. And if Christ be not risen then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also in vain."

So because if the resurrection did not happen then Christianity would be a sham therefore the resurrection must have happened. Not exactly the most convincing argument. There is also the assumption that the authors of the Gospels did not jazzed up their stories. 

For the record, I have no problems with accepting that Jesus was probably a real person. That is is really not a big issue for atheists. Whether he rose from the dead is another issue. And the evidence presented in the case for the proposition is not convincing.