OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[the phantom menace]

I suspect he is just as polarising in death as he was when he was alive.

Which is what Kirk would have wanted...

And his death is being weaponised by his brothers in arms to the hilt.

 

[Suitman]

Yep. Definitely ironic. I think I read that he was answering someone's question about gun control when he was shot.

He was.

 

[hindy111]

Imagine a terror attack on US soil right now. They'd have to be on high alert one must think.

 

[King-Gutho94]

Has Albanese’s political football in Papua gone too far?

The prime minister has opted to focus on footy and not infrastructure to counter increasing Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific region.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese always says that his three great loves are the Catholic Church, his beloved South Sydney Rabbitohs rugby league team, and the Australian Labor Party.
If there were a fourth, it would probably be infrastructure. Albanese’s longest-serving government role was as infrastructure and transport minister from December 3, 2007, to September 18, 2013. He liked to remind other politicians that “in infrastructure, talk means nothing; only results matter”.
Unfortunately, he has opted to focus on footy and not infrastructure to counter increasing Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific region.

Will Anthony Albanese be remembered as the politician who placed a $600 million bet on an NRL team and thought rugby league could outplay China?

In December 2024, the Labor government formally announced it had committed $600 million over the next 10 years to fund a National Rugby League team in Papua New Guinea. Framed as “Pacific diplomacy” by Labor and “nation-building” by PNG Prime Minister James Marape, the funding of an NRL team for the country appears benign and perhaps bears the hallmarks of being a master stroke of soft power.
The flip side of Labor’s initiative could be perceived as an exercise in hubris, ignorance, and geopolitical short-sightedness.

Life isn’t easy for the average person in Papua New Guinea. Healthcare isn’t easy to access; consequently, PNG has one of the highest rates of tuberculosis in the world. Maternal and infant mortality are also extraordinarily high, and educational opportunities are often beyond the reach of many. Approximately 20 per cent of the country has access to electricity.
Corruption plagues many of the country’s institutions, so much so that PNG’s media reported that the Independent Commission Against Corruption has failed the people. Infrastructure like roads that link people to healthcare, education, and markets is in a parlous condition and impossible to use at times.

Is footy as foreign aid a form of political theatre that allows the Labor government to avoid making the harder choices regarding military deterrence in the Indo-Pacific?
PNG signed up to China’s Belt and Road Initiative in 2018. Under China’s technical guidance and capital, practical projects improving the quality of life for ordinary citizens have been completed, such as the strengthening of the national power grid, improved telecommunications networks, agricultural projects, medical assistance, and improved educational opportunities for young people.

Improving roads in the country is also planned. China has implemented practical development strategies in PNG that have the potential to improve the quality of life for most of its people. Being one of the world’s most disadvantaged and underdeveloped countries, development aid that creates tangible opportunities and the hope for a brighter future has been warmly welcomed.

Australia’s response to China’s BRI in PNG came six years later and in the form of funding for a footy team that is supposed to be tournament-ready in 10 years. China has been delivering tangible, concrete benefits to PNG’s people for more than six years and has become a catalyst for a closer relationship between the two countries. China and PNG are forging stronger links, as demonstrated by employees of PNG’s Defence Department and the PNG Defence Force who can now study Mandarin in classes taught by facilitators from the Confucius Institute, an educational initiative established by the Chinese government. China’s influence in PNG is increasing rapidly.

The contrast between China and Australia’s approach to strengthening links with PNG raises questions. How badly has Australia misread what really influences Pacific countries? What is the opportunity cost of spending $600 million on a footy team? Will funding the team immunise children, protect the vulnerable, and ensure that infrastructure is created? Does Albanese’s government understand the nature of strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific?

Footy as foreign aid appears to be a new model for regional engagement in the Pacific, but is it a model that is too optimistic about the efficacy of soft power through footy, or is it a form of political theatre that allows the Labor government to avoid making the harder choices regarding military deterrence in the Indo-Pacific?
Is it all too little, and too late?

The Solomon Islands should have served as a cautionary tale for Australia; this country relied far too much on its historic ties and role of regional peacekeeper and neglected to see that the Solomon Islands could become far more receptive to alternative arrangements.

After forming a majority government in 2022, Albanese reminded Australians of how he grew up and promised them that he would do all he could to make their lives easier.
Albanese’s legacy may well be of the politician who prioritised political symbolism over substantive policy outcomes – the politician who placed a $600 million bet on a rugby league team and thought rugby league could outplay China.

Has Albanese’s political football in Papua gone too far?

The prime minister has opted to focus on footy and not infrastructure to counter increasing Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific region.

www.afr.com

 

[Stagger eel]

Imagine a terror attack on US soil right now. They'd have to be on high alert one must think.

you never know hey? you can't trust those drag queens.

 

[Joshuatheeel]

Has Albanese’s political football in Papua gone too far?

The prime minister has opted to focus on footy and not infrastructure to counter increasing Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific region.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese always says that his three great loves are the Catholic Church, his beloved South Sydney Rabbitohs rugby league team, and the Australian Labor Party.
If there were a fourth, it would probably be infrastructure. Albanese’s longest-serving government role was as infrastructure and transport minister from December 3, 2007, to September 18, 2013. He liked to remind other politicians that “in infrastructure, talk means nothing; only results matter”.
Unfortunately, he has opted to focus on footy and not infrastructure to counter increasing Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific region.

Will Anthony Albanese be remembered as the politician who placed a $600 million bet on an NRL team and thought rugby league could outplay China?

In December 2024, the Labor government formally announced it had committed $600 million over the next 10 years to fund a National Rugby League team in Papua New Guinea. Framed as “Pacific diplomacy” by Labor and “nation-building” by PNG Prime Minister James Marape, the funding of an NRL team for the country appears benign and perhaps bears the hallmarks of being a master stroke of soft power.
The flip side of Labor’s initiative could be perceived as an exercise in hubris, ignorance, and geopolitical short-sightedness.

Life isn’t easy for the average person in Papua New Guinea. Healthcare isn’t easy to access; consequently, PNG has one of the highest rates of tuberculosis in the world. Maternal and infant mortality are also extraordinarily high, and educational opportunities are often beyond the reach of many. Approximately 20 per cent of the country has access to electricity.
Corruption plagues many of the country’s institutions, so much so that PNG’s media reported that the Independent Commission Against Corruption has failed the people. Infrastructure like roads that link people to healthcare, education, and markets is in a parlous condition and impossible to use at times.

Is footy as foreign aid a form of political theatre that allows the Labor government to avoid making the harder choices regarding military deterrence in the Indo-Pacific?
PNG signed up to China’s Belt and Road Initiative in 2018. Under China’s technical guidance and capital, practical projects improving the quality of life for ordinary citizens have been completed, such as the strengthening of the national power grid, improved telecommunications networks, agricultural projects, medical assistance, and improved educational opportunities for young people.

Improving roads in the country is also planned. China has implemented practical development strategies in PNG that have the potential to improve the quality of life for most of its people. Being one of the world’s most disadvantaged and underdeveloped countries, development aid that creates tangible opportunities and the hope for a brighter future has been warmly welcomed.

Australia’s response to China’s BRI in PNG came six years later and in the form of funding for a footy team that is supposed to be tournament-ready in 10 years. China has been delivering tangible, concrete benefits to PNG’s people for more than six years and has become a catalyst for a closer relationship between the two countries. China and PNG are forging stronger links, as demonstrated by employees of PNG’s Defence Department and the PNG Defence Force who can now study Mandarin in classes taught by facilitators from the Confucius Institute, an educational initiative established by the Chinese government. China’s influence in PNG is increasing rapidly.

The contrast between China and Australia’s approach to strengthening links with PNG raises questions. How badly has Australia misread what really influences Pacific countries? What is the opportunity cost of spending $600 million on a footy team? Will funding the team immunise children, protect the vulnerable, and ensure that infrastructure is created? Does Albanese’s government understand the nature of strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific?

Footy as foreign aid appears to be a new model for regional engagement in the Pacific, but is it a model that is too optimistic about the efficacy of soft power through footy, or is it a form of political theatre that allows the Labor government to avoid making the harder choices regarding military deterrence in the Indo-Pacific?
Is it all too little, and too late?

The Solomon Islands should have served as a cautionary tale for Australia; this country relied far too much on its historic ties and role of regional peacekeeper and neglected to see that the Solomon Islands could become far more receptive to alternative arrangements.

After forming a majority government in 2022, Albanese reminded Australians of how he grew up and promised them that he would do all he could to make their lives easier.
Albanese’s legacy may well be of the politician who prioritised political symbolism over substantive policy outcomes – the politician who placed a $600 million bet on a rugby league team and thought rugby league could outplay China.

Has Albanese’s political football in Papua gone too far?

The prime minister has opted to focus on footy and not infrastructure to counter increasing Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific region.

www.afr.com

The author failed to mention all the facts....yes the government has committed $600m over 10 years to PNG for their side....but it's only a very small percentage of the actual assistance offered to PNG. On a yearly basis ($60m) it's only roughly 10% to 12% of what we provide:

"PNG is Australia's largest development partner, with an estimated $637.4 million in Official Development Assistance (ODA) funding (2024–25), an expanding program of blended finance (loans and grants) for infrastructure development under the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific (AIFFP), and $2.56 billion in budget support loans (non-ODA) since 2019, linked to fiscal repair and economic reform. "

https://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/papua-new-guinea/development-assistance

It's a very reasonable debate, on whether we should provide assistance for a rugby league side. However to claim it as our only assistance is quite poor, from Wallace who as a university lecturer wouId know.

 

[Gary Gutful]

The author failed to mention all the facts....yes the government has committed $600m over 10 years to PNG for their side....but it's only a very small percentage of the actual assistance offered to PNG. On a yearly basis ($60m) it's only roughly 10% to 12% of what we provide:

"PNG is Australia's largest development partner, with an estimated $637.4 million in Official Development Assistance (ODA) funding (2024–25), an expanding program of blended finance (loans and grants) for infrastructure development under the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific (AIFFP), and $2.56 billion in budget support loans (non-ODA) since 2019, linked to fiscal repair and economic reform. "

https://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/papua-new-guinea/development-assistance

It's a very reasonable debate, on whether we should provide assistance for a rugby league side. However to claim it as our only assistance is quite poor, from Wallace who as a university lecturer wouId know.

Yeah. I kept waiting for the article to refer to all of our other investment in the region.

 

[Bandwagon]

Selling the NRL to the Chinese via PNG is 4D chess from Albo.

 

[the phantom menace]

Imagine a terror attack on US soil right now. They'd have to be on high alert one must think.

I don't know... I think a lot of what's going on in the US at the moment is internal, and disgruntled individuals - given the pure divisiveness of Trump v2.0's reign.

I don't think they're at higher risk of an outside-orchestrated terror attack. But the sniper/gun play opportunities over there are way out of hand, and - given Trump himself was shot at during last year's campaign - many public figures would still be worried about disgruntled individuals reacting with their second amendment guns.

 

[lucablight]

Do you think that any discussion about something that you view as disgusting is 'legitimising'? That seems to be a point we are differing on.

It’s not about what *I* find disgusting. It’s about what most reasonable people should find disgusting. For example would you agree that spouting racist and misogynistic rhetoric is something that shouldn’t be normalised?

I would suggest that the erosion of free speech creates an environment where extreme political movements occur. By the time that has happened and you find yourself in a dictatorship then you don't have the capacity to "find common ground". So, no in answer to your question it would not be appropriate.

I never said you need to erode free speech. I’m fine with letting people hang themselves with their own rope if they say abhorrent things. My issue is when society as a whole normalises such viewpoints instead of calling them the freak shows that they are.

Look, Kirk was often offensive and wrong and the comment about guns was f**king dumb. I've always found the car comparison stupid too because a car isn't a weapon.

However, I think someone's right to say something that others view as offensive is important. Particularly, in an environment like a campus where I would argue students are being predominantly exposed to one political viewpoint (which some people might also view as offensive).

Again my issue is primarily at how society is normalising such rhetoric. I’ve never advocated for suppression of speech just because it’s offensive (unless it is harmful). A lot of the things I say are probably offensive to some people.

But hey, I'm just a radical so what the f**k would I know?



So you wouldn't have tried to actively prevent a terrible atrocity such as the holocaust because inciting further violence wouldn't have been appropriate?

Actually, don't answer that - just thought I'd give you a taste of your own debating tactics.

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here.

 

[the phantom menace]

"Putin keeps spitting in Trump’s eye and Trump keeps telling the world that it’s raining."

"Every day that goes by, Trump seems to add another condition or another timeline for when he will impose meaningful economic sanctions on Russia, as Putin steps up his attacks on Ukraine."

It's a definite worry... there's something that compromises Trump from being an effective world leader when it comes to pressuring Russia to end the invasion of Ukraine.

Why does Putin still own Trump? The question America’s allies are asking

Putin keeps spitting in Trump’s eye and Trump keeps telling the world that it’s raining.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Gary Gutful]

It’s not about what *I* find disgusting. It’s about what most reasonable people should find disgusting. For example would you agree that spouting racist and misogynistic rhetoric is something that shouldn’t be normalised?

I think it is often applied in the *I* context. It can become about what an individual finds offensive rather than a ‘reasonable person’ (whatever the f**k that is).

Spouting racist and misogynistic rhetoric shouldn’t be accepted and is not something I support. However, what I view as misogynistic and racist might be different to you and I sometimes see examples of people getting quickly labelled without much evidence of an offence.

I never said you need to erode free speech. I’m fine with letting people hang themselves with their own rope if they say abhorrent things. My issue is when society as a whole normalises such viewpoints instead of calling them the freak shows that they are.

My view is that the bar for being offensive and abhorrent is much lower than it used to be for public figures and you can’t get away with what you used to in relation to racism, misogyny, bigotry etc.

However, much of that has now moved across to the cesspool that is social media where it is horrific on an unimaginable scale when people believe they are anonymous.

Again my issue is primarily at how society is normalising such rhetoric. I’ve never advocated for suppression of speech just because it’s offensive (unless it is harmful). A lot of the things I say are probably offensive to some people.

Understood. I think some of what I explained above might be a contributing factor. People have differing standards on what they view as hate speech or offensive.

I don’t think it is hateful or offensive to say that there is a risk that DEI doesn’t result in the most qualified person being employed or that black-on-black crime is a concern and the absence of a father in the black community is a contributing factor. But others have labelled Charlie a racist when he makes these points.

Agree that some of his shit about the role of a man and a woman is misogynistic though. No argument there.

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here.

I was just asking a similarly sloppy and irrelevant question about Nazis as you previously did.

 

[Suitman]

Zelensky speaks so much sense. Always.
He is trying to defend his sovereign country which was illegally invaded by a bully.
He is calm and intelligent and literate.
And he speaks English fluently, unlike Trump.

 

[eels_fan]

spouting racist and misogynistic rhetoric

I've seen a shit load of Charlie Kirk material over the last week, but i wouldn't classify any of it as misogynistic - so i'm keen to hear what you determine that to be.

If him suggesting he believes in the "traditional" roles of a married woman in a family environment being the care-givers who raise the children and tend to the home - thats not misogynistic, it's simply a personal opinion and choice. If the cost of living wasn't so high that most families need two working adults to eat, i think its the way the majority would "preferably" live.

As for racist rhetoric - that's entirely determined by your view of what racism is. When i've heard him comment on race, its usually been fact or statistic driven and not just an off the cuff comment. He presents bluntly, no doubt, and i can entirely understand why some may take it that way - but as with most communication - intent is sometimes more important that the words themselves.

 

[the phantom menace]

As for racist rhetoric - that's entirely determined by your view of what racism is. When i've heard him comment on race, its usually been fact or statistic driven and not just an off the cuff comment. He presents bluntly, no doubt, and i can entirely understand why some may take it that way - but as with most communication - intent is sometimes more important that the words themselves.

Kirk is the "they're eating the cats and the dogs" guy, no?

Try this one on for size - and let me know what you think Kirk's intent was by spreading this to his armies of followers...

Charlie Kirk amplifies since-debunked social media rumor about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio

Contrary to Kirk's claim, which is apparently based on a single anonymous Facebook post, the Springfield News-Sun reported that police have had "no reports" of pets being stolen: The Springfield Police Division said Monday morning they have received no reports related to pets being stolen and...

www.mediamatters.org

 

[eels_fan]

Kirk is the "they're eating the cats and the dogs" guy, no?

Try this one on for size - and let me know what you think Kirk's intent was by spreading this to his armies of followers...

Charlie Kirk amplifies since-debunked social media rumor about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio

Contrary to Kirk's claim, which is apparently based on a single anonymous Facebook post, the Springfield News-Sun reported that police have had "no reports" of pets being stolen: The Springfield Police Division said Monday morning they have received no reports related to pets being stolen and...

www.mediamatters.org

Well the main statement was all Trump that lead to the memes etc, but let’s just post Kirk’s entire commentary on the Haitian / Springfield situation:


CHARLIE KIRK (HOST): There's some great Haitians in America. There's some — I've met them in Florida. But also, there's a fair amount of Haitians that should have been better vetted and shouldn't be here at all. The elites in this country thought they could shame the locals of Springfield, Ohio, into being quiet. They thought of all of them would be too scared of being called racist to say anything, but they were wrong. More and more people are speaking up about what has happened to their town. They're talking about how their hospitals, schools, and social services are being overwhelmed. They're talking about vagrants moving onto their lawns, and they fear all sorts of crime. And now they're talking about something even crazier.

Allegedly, Haitians are going around and taking people's pets and eating them. The duck pond in a local park is being picked clean. So, allegedly, you have Haitians in this town of Springfield, Ohio that are going by and eating ducks.

not sure about you, but I don’t consider that as racist?

 

[Avenger]

Zelensky speaks so much sense. Always.
He is trying to defend his sovereign country which was illegally invaded by a bully.
He is calm and intelligent and literate.
And he speaks English fluently, unlike Trump.

I disagree. He comes across as a weasel to me. I can’t stand him.

 

[Suitman]

I disagree. He comes across as a weasel to me. I can’t stand him.

You can't stand him because he is doing everything to defend his country and therefore, that makes him a weasel? Wow.
I respect your right to have an opinion and the fact that is the way you feel about this conflict.
However, I ever so strongly disagree with you.
Why?
Because you never, ever, address the fact that Ukraine, has been invaded by a tyrant country who invaded a peaceful democracy, that long ago submitted their security of a nuclear weapon arsenal in return for peace in an agreement with Russia. Look how that has turned out.
I'm not surprised you feel this way though considering Serbia is on the side of Putin.
I would have thought you would prefer world peace, considering you have the luxury to live in one of the most stable and peaceful countries in the world, but clearly you think otherwise.

 

[Avenger]

You can't stand him because he is doing everything to defend his country and therefore, that makes him a weasel? Wow.
I respect your right to have an opinion and the fact that is the way you feel about this conflict.
However, I ever so strongly disagree with you.
Why?
Because you never, ever, address the fact that Ukraine, has been invaded by a tyrant country who invaded a peaceful democracy, that long ago submitted their security of a nuclear weapon arsenal in return for peace in an agreement with Russia. Look how that has turned out.
I'm not surprised you feel this way though considering Serbia is on the side of Putin.
I would have thought you would prefer world peace, considering you have the luxury to live in one of the most stable and peaceful countries in the world, but clearly you think otherwise.

I told you to watch ‘Ukraine on Fire’ and you refused. He didn’t invade for nothing. ‘Not one inch closer’ they promised.

 

[Suitman]

I told you to watch ‘Ukraine on Fire’ and you refused. He didn’t invade for nothing. ‘Not one inch closer’ they promised.

I didn't refuse to watch anything.
Ukraine wanting to join NATO was for their own security, nothing more. And why? Well, we can clearly see that now.
You still (and never do) answer the questions I ask of you.

- They gave up their nuclear arsenal in a security guarantee with Russia.
- They were then invaded by Russia, even though they were no threat to them and had no intentions of conflict, whether they joined NATO or not.
- However, Russia still threatens nuclear war, not just against Ukraine, but Europe.

Anyway, How's Russia's 3 day war to take Kyiv going? It's now 3 and a half years and yet
Putin has sacrificed over a million of his own countrymen for what, a small fraction of Ukranian territory?




If you cannot see this war and the loss of lives, both civilian and in combat as a tragedy, and who ultimately bought this conflict on, I cannot help you.