Rudd Falls Into Line / Luck Of The Draw

KEVIN RUDD had a chance to continue the success of his current world trip and impress NATO with some fresh ideas on Afghanistan. He could have at least given his support to some alternative plans being suggested by several NATO members. He could have ... but he didn't.

Is Kevin Rudd just another US stooge like John Howard and taking the same familiar path?  

When Kevin Rudd took office last November, there was some optimisism from drug policy reformists. After 11 years of ignorance and Howards curtailing to the US conservative forces, there was some hope that Australia would join other countries in redefining a more pragmatic drug policy. The statement from Rudd that futures policies would be “evidence based” gave hope that finally facts would win over political, moral and religious rhetoric.

Except for some off handed comments that Labor were “tough on drugs”, there has been very little indication about which path Rudd will take. That was until his recent overseas trip. Rudd has just spent time in the US to discuss our diplomatic ties and it looks like the spin doctors had a field day with him.

At the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation summit in Bucharest, Rudd has made his priority the eradication of Afghanistan's opium fields including detailed plans on how to do it. The influence from the US was obvious and the European leaders in NATO were not impressed with the tired old agenda being thrown at them. The European leaders were expecting more from our new PM considering they had made their feelings clear about Howard’s constant mirroring of US policy. The call for more troops was also seen as another US ploy and again reminiscent of the Howard years. Australia has only 1000 troops in Afghanistan and is often criticised by the Europeans for pushing the US agenda without fully committing more troops themselves.

Crop eradication has never met expectations with Colombia being the obvious benchmark. Crop spraying has had very little success and Colombian cocaine has actually increased in production. The only visible results is a country now being run with a paramilitary style police force murdering locals on the street and thousands of innocent farmers losing their legitimate crops to US led cocaine eradication programs.

In Afghanistan, the US has already poured in $1.2 billion into a program of slashing the poppy harvest worth only $1 billion. Opium production went up 30%. The main outcome was increasing hatred of the west from farmers who had their livelihood taken away. The US is now trying to force the Afghanistan government into arial spraying and Rudd is seen as a keen US supporter much like Howard was. The US has appointed former Colombian ambassador, William Wood as it’s ambassador in Kabul. Wood is commonly known as "Chemical Bill" in Washington for his introduction of the Colombian chemical eradication program. You know, the program that didn’t work.

The US could have bought the opium from the farmers and burnt it but it would be “sending the wrong message”. Such is the stupidity of the “War on Drugs”. The other plan to turn Afghanistan’s farmers onto alternative crops has been tried and failed several times. This was Rudd’s sugestion to deal with the locals and the loss of their primary income. It was dismissed quickly by nonchalant NATO officials.

If this is an example of the alternative to Howard’s drug strategy then we are in for a long three years. Australia has spent decades building up Harm Minimisation and was considered a leader worldwide until Howard rode the wave of US conservatism and tried to replace it with a US style zero tolerance policy. Rudd has the chance to now catch up and once again show that facts, research and humane government policies will put us on the map far more than kissing US butt ever will.

The Luck Of The Draw

Mr. David Paterson, newly elevated Governor of NY, recently acknowledged that he used cocaine and marijuana in his younger years. Had he been unlucky enough back then to get busted for possession of a single joint, or a trace amount of coke, he'd probably be in jail now, or trying to overcome a "criminal record" and find a job, or perhaps dead. Instead, because he had the good fortune not to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, he is responsible for governing NY State - and however one judges his likelihood of governing well, no one has suggested for a moment that he's unqualified in the light of his acknowledgment. 

Justice should not hinge on luck. Hopefully, the new governor will reconsider our drug policies in light of his own experience. He has long advocated changing the Draconian Rockefeller Law; now he should push for an even more radical change in how we approach drug use in our state and nation. If any political leader can empathize with the real victims of the drug war, he can!

-RG Newman MD, Opiate Addiction. 

Oh McCain ... You've Done It Again

John McCain who is turning 182 next week, has slipped up again. This time, in an effort to please the GOP conservatives, McCain was making sure that he wasn't going to stumble on any of the moral issue policies. It seems though with all this responsibility that he isn't sure if condoms stop HIV/AIDS. On the "Straight Talk express", a reprise of the bus tours that he used as part of his election campaign back in 2000, McCain stumbled, paused, mumbled and called on help from his advisors. What was his position? Help please...

The transcript: 

Reporter: “Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?”

McCain: “Well I think it’s a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes – and I was just reading the thing he wrote– that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn’t succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I’m not very wise on it.”

( McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)

McCain: “I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don’t know if I would use taxpayers’ money for it.”

Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”

McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”

McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian(press secretary), would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”

Q: “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”

McCain: (Twelve-second pause) “Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver(senior adviser) to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before.”

This must be scary for a many people. A potential US president who doesn't know if condoms stop HIVAIDS or sexually transmitted disease. Having to ask an aid what his own position is on government funded sex education including the use of condoms is more than just a McCain gaff. It is typical of how the GOP have allowed religion and neocons to overtake their core party ideology. I am sure The Republican party of old would be vastly unhappy with the direction the present day GOP has taken. Apart from minimalist governments, no nation building and personal rights, keeping people safe is another fundamental GOP cornerstone that the current Republican party members in power are happily ignoring.

Another Statistic

Recent surveys found that 79 per cent of adult males detained on property offences tested positive to a drug of some type (excluding tobacco and alcohol) 

- (Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2006)

It is more than likely that the 79% mentioned are addicts resorting to theft to feed a drug habit. It must be obvious, even to the most optimistic of us that there is an underlying problem not being addressed here. The current solution to this problem is jail. Not a good place to send someone with a medical condition especially addiction. It grates on me that when you are sick, you are normally sent to hospital unless that sickness is addiction. One growing solution is to treat addicts with the drug they crave. Some countries now take this approach with extremely successful results. England still provided addicts with their drug of addiction up until the 1970s when they fell in line with the US "War on Drugs" and switched patients over to methadone. Some doctors can still legally prescribe morphine, cocaine or heroin to addicts but the UK health department usually don't approve it. There are about 300-400 patients still prescribed heroin in the UK. Recently the British government embarked on a scientific trial with prescription heroin and cocaine to 500 addicts but this time carefully monitoring the success rate. The problem was that those who already received prescription heroin had very little crime activity and had caused no problems at all. It all seemed to be working well but to expand the program they needed scientific evidence and this was undertaken a few years ago. The results are still to come.

I don't endorse just handing out highly addictive drugs to anyone. Abstinence should always be the goal. The problem is that sometimes addicts take longer than expected to get clean and sometimes it just never happens. These are the cases where we should look to the past where drugs like heroin, cocaine & morphine were prescribed to treat addiction and drug related crime was almost unheard of. Interestingly, the addiction rate has not really changed since we first started recording this information over 100 years ago.

Equality Wins in Spain / Americanazim in Australia

The Socialist Party in Spain has won another term in office and are to introduce important social reforms. The reforms are new laws for gender equality, new procedures to speed up divorce and the introduction of same sex marriages.

The key election promises to be introduced are major wins for equality and of course fiercely opposed by conservatives and the Roman Catholic Church.

This also renews hopes for the successful heroin trials to be extended throughout the country that had been stifled by pressure from the conservatives.

Americanazim in Australia

Right wing hate blog, A Western Heart has a serious problem. They can't spell. Sure they have spell checkers but they seem to have them set to US English.

"And the public adulation Obama receives is eerily reminiscent of how Hitler was received by vast numbers of Germans. But you have to know history to realize that."

"When you mix Leftist Ideology and Socialized Medicine"

AWH is a an Australian right wing hate blog authored & managed by 'Staff Writers'  which is made up of mainly Christian extremists, ultra right wing conservatives and Dr. Tingtong, president of the local model railway club. The common theme of the contributors is the hard leaning to Right-wing Authoritarianism.

AWH has an infatuation with American conservative ideals, especially those associated to the GW Bush administration. Links to their main contributors personal blogs are usually adorned with the American flag or have links to Israeli political issues.This hybrid of Australian politics and American conservative culture often includes references to American issues like gun rights, war glorification, GW Bush admiration, evangelistic ideals, pro Israeli aggression and other neocon ideology. 

Most articles have familiar themes and attract like minded individuals.* These themes include racism, Christian extremism, anti feminism, crime reporting and anti left wing opinions. All very much part of the Ackerman, Bolt & Blair type politics and social commentary. AWH does have some non political articles including pictures of cars, girls and guns that they will never own or touch.**

*Elijah is still learning

** Spud guns and popguns may be still be available by mail order

The Salvos, Weak Minded Junkies, Giuliani & Media

Salvation Army vs Brian Watters

I wrote an email to Salvation Army Major, David Brunt (Senior Chaplain - Adult Services) a while back expressing my amazement that not all Salvation Army members follow the dark, hellbound rhetoric that major Brian Watters adheres to. Here are three quotes from David Blunt that opposes Brian Watters damnation of the proposed ACT heroin trials in the late 1990s.

‘My Sydney colleague, Brian Watters, unfortunately sees addiction - and I'm quoting him from our own publication, The War Cry, last week - as sin. We find that abhorrent and oppose it totally.’

‘When the heroin trial was first mooted, the Salvation Army in Melbourne put together a paper saying we wanted to be part of the evaluation of the trial if it went ahead. Unfortunately Brian became the Prime Minister's main adviser at that stage. And subsequently, some of our issues have become very blurred.’

‘We see addiction as an illness, a health issue. Down here we don't see it as a moral issue. In St Kilda we set up what's now become one of the largest needle and syringe exchanges in this country. It seems a little ironic, when we're running such an exchange, that at the same time our colleagues are talking about moral issues’

David actually answered my email today which was a bit of a surprise. It's people like David who gave the Salvos a good name and it's why Australians had a positive attitude towards them for so long. I am sure some people still don't realise that they are actually a church and not just a charity group. That says a lot considering all the 'Jesus babble' we usually get from churches especially the evangelists. It's a pity the Brian Watters brigade tried to put their self righteous arrogance into the Salvos and they became just another religious group to many who once supported them.

David's response was simple:

Good morning Terry.  Thank you for your kind note, which came as a sense of encouragement to me. I find it strange that the debate on harm minimisation is still going on. Don't give up. 

Kind regards,

David 

'No Will Power' / 'Weak Minded' Not a Valid Argument

For too long, addicts have been branded as piss weak individuals who won't do the hard work and kick their habit. Many experts have argued for years that it defies logic that so many people can't just kick it while some can do itwith  relative ease. The critics would suggest we need to get tougher on these long term addicts because to them it's a matter of self discipline - research is just a cop out for them because good god fearing folks would just grit their teeth and bare it. Everyone's an expert especially the moralists but facts are from scientific research and real experts follow the faith of science. Below is just more evidence that addiction is complex and we need to rethink our drug policy.

Story from the ABC News Website      

There is growing evidence drug addiction can permanently change the brain's chemistry.

A joint investigation by Swiss and Australian scientists has shown the chemicals in drugs can override basic suvival instincts. A Neurobiologist Dr. Chris Dayas says drug addiction can reduce a person's desire to perform basic human functions such as eating. Dr. Dayas says normal behaviour is often replaced by an overwhelming need to take more drugs. New research in to the effect of drugs on the brain is one of the subjects being discussed at a 3 day neuroscience conference in Hobart.

-ABC News

Giuliani is GONE!

Neocon, Rudy Giuliani has finally ended his campaign to be the Republican presidential candidate. After a dismal performance in the Florida primaries, Giuliani, a GW Bush on Viagra, is bowing out before he embarrass himself anymore. He left us with these parting words: 

"During 911, I stood up with my fellow New Yorkers and we defeated the Muslim terrorists. Now as we continue to bomb and kill the terrorists abroad, 911 keeps us focussed on why terrorism is so dangerous. The 911 terrorism experience has taught me that another terror attack like 911 from extremist Muslims is possible and if we forget 911 then another Muslim terrorist cell could cause another 911. 911 was the day terrorism changed us ... 911 was a terror attack that no pre 911 world could imagine. Since 911 and after 911, terrorism remains our biggest threat and unless Muslim extremists and terrorism is stopped, 911 will be a terror type 911 terror that only a 911 non terrorist could imagine. 911 terror and terrorism like 911 is terror Muslim 911 terrorist plot of terrorists Muslims like 911, for example, being mayor terror Muslim 911 or terrorist 911 Muslim threat is 911 terrorist bomb 911 Muslim"

Media Interest

I sent out dozens of emails lately to politicians and the media asking them to answer a simple question. Do they support a heroin trial? Surprisingly I have only received 4 responses. Phillip Adams, Andrew Bartlett, Andrew Bolt and Christian Kerr.

Maybe they just don't care?  I am guessing there are some who don't want to touch such a dirty subject but a more likely reason is that I am just small fry and probably not worth replying to. What really surprised me though was the bloggers who didn't reply. Are they really that busy or important not to answer? Who knows ... maybe it is such a side issue to most people, it's really not worth a reply. Interestingly though, I have collated quite a list of people who have spoken out but they are mostly politicians or lawmakers.

If you are in the media or a blogger or even a polly and you're reading this, c'mon give me an answer ... I need to know.

Who Supports a Heroin Trial?

The Danger of the U.S. on us all

The effects of U.S. culture are clearly seen in most countries and Australia is no exception. Entertainment and fashion are the obvious influences but what about corporate and political influence? I can live with some American corporate icons as being global enterprises trying to make a buck but I draw the line at WalMart or Nike that are known for their human rights violations. American mega-corporations have also created a new catch-phrase you now hear so often from our Australia companies via the CEO, "we have a responsibility to our shareholders". The excuse for shredding customers into tiny pieces of profit. The other issue that influences our lives just as much but evades our daily thinking is drug prohibition. The idea that illicit drugs could be bought freely in chemists is extremely foreign to us or the idea that taking ecstasy before going to a night club is legal just isn't comprehendible to most people. But why? Contrary to popular belief, removing strict drug prohibition would not cause a huge increase of drug use. We would not be tripping over junkies in the street nor would any other drug nightmare happen. This is just what the U.S. wants us to think ... and we do. Did the removal of alcohol prohibition in the U.S. cause the world to slip into mass alcoholism? Ordinary people do not over use alcohol just because it's legal. The same is for drug use. Illegal drugs are readily available and can be obtained easily now, so why would the removal of prohibition change that? We already know the dangers of drugs so the dumbed down argument that citizens would just blindly start abusing any drug and every drug in volumes is just ludicrous. It doesn't happen with alcohol which is highly addictive so why would it happen with most drugs. Despite the U.S. led, "War on Drugs" costing the U.S. alone over 1.3 trillion dollars so far, drugs are easier to get, more pure and cheaper to buy. More than 2.2 million U.S. citizens are in jail and over half are for drug crimes yet drug use doesn't drop. The U.S. "War on Drugs" gives crime cartels worldwide an estimated 400 billion dollars worth of business every year. The mortality rate for drug crimes (gang/organised crime) not involving overdoes is in the up 100,000 every year. This policy would have to be the biggest failure in U.S. history. Even worse, it causes more death and carnage to peoples lives than any non war policy ever. So why do governments like Australia's government keep following the U.S. lead? More importantly, why do countries with a highly educated population like Australia, fail to see the obvious? The facts are all there and extremely easy to find ... just Google it. UN decisions on international drug policy is mostly designed around U.S. federal legislation. The U.S. basically dictates what the UN deems as international conventions. Almost every nation has signed the UN conventions, yet there has never been a serious international debate about whether prohibition should be the basic method of dealing with drug problems. Any country that tries to break free from the UN or U.S. policy is immediately cast as being 'soft on drugs' and subjected to heavy handed reprisals including blackmail. When Australia was to have a heroin trial in the 1990s, a visit from the U.S's top international drug enforcer, Bob Gelbard warned us that it was not in our interest to proceed with something that was so polar to their "War on Drugs". They warned that if Australia went ahead, the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) might embargo Tasmania's opium poppy industry. The warning was strong enough to halt the trials. When the Dutch changed policy to Harm Minimisation that provided clean needles to heroin addicts, allowed the sale of marijuana in highly regulated shops and the overlooking of possession for small amounts of illicit drugs, the U.S. went troppo. They made up false figures and released them as evidence that the Dutch drug policy was "an unmitigated disaster". The U.S. claimed, "Dutch teenagers used marijuana at three times the rate of American teens, The murder rate in Holland is double that in the United States. The per-capita crime rates are much higher than the United States—that's drugs.". It was all a lie. Most research shows that Dutch teenagers use marijuana much less than American teens. The American murder rate is 450% higher than the Dutch rate and the rate of heroin abuse (considered a key drug indicator) is nearly 300% higher in the United States than in Holland. The United States also worked behind the scenes to internationalize its prohibition efforts—sometimes using questionable pressure tactics. Charles Siragusa, an American narcotics agent during the early years of international prohibition, noted in his 1966 memoirs that foreign police almost always worked willingly with us. It was their superiors in government who were sometimes unhappy that we had entered their countries. Most of the time, though, I found that a casual mention of the possibility of shutting off our foreign aid programs, dropped in the proper quarters, brought grudging permission for our operations almost immediately. The Last Word on the Drug War By Dan Gardiner, The Vancouver Sun The U.S. often uses foreign aid as a tool to expand American drug policies. The 1984 National Drug Strategy for Prevention of Drug Abuse and Drug Trafficking stated that "U.S. decisions on foreign aid and other matters should be tied to the willingness of the recipient country to execute vigorous enforcement programs against narcotic traffickers." In 1980, the U.S. stopped most foreign aid to Bolivia when it declared the Bolivian government was 'unresponsive' to American demands for cocaine control. The UN's World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned a report on cocaine use in the early 1990s. It was an extensive research project using dozens of experts in 22 cities and 19 countries and was finished in 1995. But for some mysterious reason, the WHO decided the report was technically unsound and it was never released. The WHO declared it had no plans to do further research on cocaine. The unreleased document is critical of existing drug policies and many of the beliefs about cocaine that support those policies. Among its startling conclusions:—Occasional cocaine use, not intensive or compulsive consumption, is the most typical pattern of cocaine use.—Most participating countries agree that occasional cocaine use does not typically lead to severe or even minor physical or social problems.—The chewing of coca leaves by South American aboriginals appears to have no negative health effects and has positive, therapeutic, sacred and social functions. According to the former UNDCP official, this landmark report was withheld because the United States pressed the WHO to bury it. If it was released, American officials warned, the United States would pull its funding from the section of WHO responsible for the report. The U.S. state department would not comment on this allegation. However, WHO official Hartl confirms that this threat was made. In a May 1995 meeting, according to the WHO's records, Neil Boyer, the American representative to the organization, took the view that [the WHO's] program on substance abuse supported the legalization of drugs. Boyer concluded that if WHO activities relating to drugs failed to reinforce proven drug-control approaches, funds for the relevant programs should be curtailed. The Last Word on the Drug War By Dan Gardiner, The Vancouver Sun In 2006, a bill in the Mexican Senate that would decriminalise the possession of small amounts of drugs was passed in both the Mexican Senate and Congress. President Vicente Fox declared nationally that he would sign it into law the next day. His office said that decriminalising drugs will free up police to focus on major dealers. “This law gives police and prosecutors better legal tools to combat drug crimes that do so much damage to our youth and children,”. The U.S. intervened and after strong objections from Washington, President Vicente Fox had a change of heart and announced a few days later that he would not proceed to sign the bill after all. There's no point even discussing Latin America because it has been documented so many times that the U.S. do whatever they want with these countries. Plan Columbia, a neocon's dream was eventually exposed for a U.S. plan to mange the Columbia government and showed how the CIA actually smuggled cocaine into the U.S. to pay for the operation. Panamanian ex-leader Manuel Noriega was a highly paid CIA asset and collaborator, despite knowledge by U.S. drug authorities that he was heavily involved in drug trafficking. There can be no sensible debate on Latin American drug policy when the so called 'local sherif' of drug prohibition contradicts their own policies. The "War on Drugs" is over ... we lost. 

When will sensible drug policies be publicly debated amongst experts? I don't mean a silly television chit-chat special made up of lobby groups, the public, religious leaders or moral zealots but real experts who don't bend to politics or so called moralists. Experts with scientific or medical backgrounds, social and welfare workers, addiction specialists etc. These issues has cost so many lives and have ruined millions more. The cost of the "War on Drugs" could feed the world for years and eliminate poverty forever. It causes most of the world's crime and put millions of non violent drug users in jail. 

Drug policy can't be forced on us by the U.S. who are corrupt, self-serving and liars. They have proved over the last 35, that their deontological actions in the name of the "War on Drugs" are draconian and have failed dismally. Their portrayal as 'the fighters for liberty' is hypocritical at best and the "War on Drugs" is completely against their own constitution they hold so dearly. 

For a country that has such a high number of Christians and the unusual requirement that their leaders have to be strongly religious shows up the "War on Drugs" as the political tool it really is. No real Christian nation with selfless morals who follow the real meaning of their god would accommodate such a cruel and divisive policy. Only Christian extremists and American evangelists have the nerve to claim such cruelty is neccessary. They wouldn't make treatment the minor part of the policy and would not ruin so many lives with such aggressive punishments. How such as a policy can be condoned let alone adopted is beyond reason.

It also can't be left to politicians who have to play a game of popularity and it definitely can't be left to moralists and religion that have their own greedy agenda. It's time for policy makers to learn from history and implement startegies that deal with reality and how best to help those effected.

The Scourge of Conservatism

No Dole for Drug Addicts!.

This was the headline that stopped me dead cold in my tracks. The 2007 Australian election is getting desperate for neo-con Howard and his Liberal Party. God that name is deceptive, Liberal Party ... the most non-liberal bunch of rabble I have encountered in Australian politics. Anyway, as usual during an election, Howard always plays the "bigot" card. It usually is a race issue to attract the many rednecks and racist right wing whackos e.g. children overboard, immigration, detention centres etc. They tried it again with the Mohamed Haneef case and since that backfired the "Tough on Drugs" issue was raised. The coalition's drug policy was pushed to new heights with an announcement that people convicted of drug offences would have their welfare payments handled by the Government. This means food stamps instead of cash, interdiction of purchasing smokes and alcohol etc. I was stunned to say the least and so were many welfare agencies. Even the AMA denounced it but it was too late because the message had got out. I read many comments from readers from various newspapers and although there were not as many pro-hate comments as previous elections, there were enough to keep me reminded of the millions of Australians who believe in Howard's Australia. No one with any common sense would think this could work. Many readers comments stated the obvious with comments like "now there will be a black market in food stamps" or "these addicts will just go into business of burglary or drug dealing to pay for their habit ... who said the Government doesn't support small business". I guessed there was about 80% against the policy and about 20% for it. How low will this dickhead go? He makes my skin crawl. I have been fairly relaxed during this diary but this has made me so mad. So for the record, I am just going to say it:

John Howard is a Brain Dead Freak.

He is an evil, narcissistic, lying, senile, flatulent, brain dead freak.

I hate this spaz so much it's embarrassing. This so called man who stopped the heroin trials because of his personal morals against the advice of numerous drug committees has forced me into the world of methadonia. I am a prime candidate for the heroin prescription plan that is part of some countries health plans ... and soon to be part of many countries health plans. Each day I wake up with pain and depression. I take my methadone and about an hour later I start to feel better. This lasts for about 2 hours and then I am flat out trying to feel normal again. This normal can mostly be achieved via a great medication called heroin. Why do medical experts, welfare workers and scientists understand this but not certain people especially politicians? I will tell you why - CONSERVATISM.

CONSERVATISM. The term itself is repressive. The opposite to progressive. Did society get here today by being conservative? No. It actually was the factor that stopped women voting, minority groups voting, Gay rights getting acknowledged, climate control etc. Howard is pushing the agenda that he and his merrymen are economic conservatives. Rudd also attributes himself as an economic conservative. WTF? This is not good, this is bad. This means budget surpluses which is an oxymoron anyway because a budget is suppose to balance. Surpluses just means that the Government is not spending our tax we pay on services. If Australia had perfect hospitals, schools etc. then a surplus would be good but this irresponsible Government just wanted to have a surplus to boast economic conservatism.

Paul Keating came out and hammered Costello for being the “laziest, most indolent, unimaginative treasurer in our post-war history”. I actually had time for Costello once but Keating is God when it comes to economics and it made me think. Keating went on to say how it was actually the unions that started the low inflation trend that Howard attributes to the Libs great handling of the economy via economic conservatism. Keating produced some notes from May 1995 that showed it was the ACTU secretary Bill Kelty who suggested a limit on inflation of just 3 per cent, which was taken up by the Reserve Bank chief Bernie Fraser. This again proves Howard is a liar and indicates that Costello is not what he is cracked up to be. If lying, surpluses or doing nothing is the fundamentals of conservative economics then Rudd, the self appointed me-too economic conservative will probably not be much better.

FYI: A Neoconservative (Neocon) is someone who follows the political view that was made popular by Leo Strauss, an American Political Science Professor from the University of Chicago. Strauss had a dedicated group of students and followers including Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. The neoconservative ideologies were strengthened in the U.S. by George Bush Snr., Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney during the presidency of Gerald Ford and were responsible for the first neocon president, Ronald Reagan. The pinnacle of the neocon agenda is with the current Bush adminstration and has had many neo-cons including G.W. Bush, Scooter Libby, Richard Armitage, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams. The basic philosophy is that the U.S. should be seen as the setter of moral standards worldwide and it should enforce it's democracy on other countries. The people should not question their government and should be more concerned with nationalism via patriotism and morals via christianity. Liberal views deflate social morality and individualism only distract from nations goals. Neocons who follow the Strauss ideal is best summed up in this paper by Shadia B. Drury:

The trouble with the Straussians is that they are compulsive liars. But it is not altogether their fault. Strauss was very pre-occupied with secrecy because he was convinced that the truth is too harsh for any society to bear; and that the truth-bearers are likely to be persecuted by society - specially a liberal society - because liberal democracy is about as far as one can get from the truth as Strauss understood it

.

Leo Strauss and the neoconservatives

John Howard is a neocon in that he supports the Bush administration's agenda. He shares many ideals with G.W. Bush and blindly supports the U.S. e.g. The War on Terror, The War on Drugs, Israel occupation and human rights abuse, anti-abortion, pro christian moral propaganda, religious rhetoric, forced U.S. style democracy via military intervention, executive power overriding courts and constitutions, extreme secrecy, loss of civil rights, tax cuts for the wealthy etc.

Neoconservatism