Mike Rann in alleged Sex Scandal!

Popular South Australian Premier Mike Rann has been linked to an alleged EXPLOSIVE sex scandal that threatens to topple his leadership.

In an interview on Channel 7 on Sunday evening, former barmaid Michelle Chantelois revealed that she had an affair with Mr Rann and had sex with him on several occasions, including in his Parliamentary office.

The married woman says she had a sexual affair with South Australian Premier Mike Rann says the politician “used me to stroke his own ego”.

Ms Chantelois has told New Idea magazine she had sex with Mr Rann on his office desk in Parliament House.

“When I got there, he grabbed me and pinned me against the door and began kissing me with his tongue,” Ms Chantelois told the magazine in a paid interview published today.

“Then he guided me to his desk and sat me on top of his desk and dropped his trousers and had sex with me.

Ms Chantelois said Mr Rann had asked for her measurements so he could buy her sexy underwear, and also invited her to his Adelaide home.

“When I arrived he guided me to a yellow leather lounge and lay on top of me and started kissing me passionately,” she said. “I felt ashamed so I went to the bathroom and washed my face and then went home.”

Ms Chantelois said Mr Rann had asked her to book hotel rooms for them but she refused, and that he asked her not to have sex with her husband for three days prior to them meeting.

Ms Chantelois described the affair as intoxicating.

“I was falling under his spell,” she said.

“The relationship was intoxicating. It was like a drug and I was addicted.

“I knew it was wrong but I couldn’t stop doing it.”

The Premier, elected in 2002 and facing a state poll in March next year, told Ms Chantelois she was “part of his rally team and he needed my support”, she said.

Ms Chantelois said she was speaking out because “I couldn’t go to my grave with these lies”.

Her estranged husband Richard Phillips, who is accused of hitting Mr Rann with a rolled-up magazine at a public function last October, has issued a statement today, with his lawyer on hand, urging there be a parliamentary inquiry into the matter.

“Based upon what’s been said, it is my opinion that Mr Rann has taken advantage of my wife’s youthful naivety and vulnerability during a very difficult time for our marriage and our family and has shown that he lacks the personal qualities and character to remain in the office of the Premier,” he read from the statement.

Political commentator Chris Schacht, who is a former ALP senator and party secretary, says any personal matters are not the issue for the public.

“The major issue will be, as it was in Bill Clinton, his [Mr Clinton's] problem was he denied something outright, about having sex with so-called “that woman” and then about a month later he had to get up and say “I was wrong, I did have some sort of sexual relation”.

“That was what really hammered him.”

Mr Rann said he would respond further to the allegations later in the day. In a statement released earlier, Mr Rann said the TV report included allegations that were totally false.

Update: Mike Rann has categorically denied the allegations and has said that they did not have sex.

Monday by the Magazine Rack

Hello,

G’day and welcome to Monday by the Magazine Rack, our beginning of the working week idle chit chat thread.

Tomorrow will mark the 2nd anniversary of the Rudd Government. I think it would be fair to say that one thing that characterises the Rudd Government is the way in which situations are carefully orchestrated to avoid the Prime Minister being confronted with difficult decisions.

However as we approached the “business end” of the Government’s negotiations with the Opposition, this will be a do or die week for both Malcolm Turnbull and Kevin Rudd. Essentially both leaders are aspiring towards the same outcome, however Turnbull’s position is hanging by a thread following mounting opposition from within.

Should an agreement be reached, it will be a victory for both leaders, if it is defeated Turnbull’s leadership will be untenable.

It will be an interesting week in politics…!

God told Me to Hate You.

Earlier this month, the ACT State Government introduced laws that recognised same-sex civil unions.

However, the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has declared that the Government had not ruled out vetoing the laws.

“We’ll just see what the legal advice says in terms of what can be done here in the ACT,” he told reporters.

Good job too. I mean, if we start giving gay and lesbian people equal rights, pretty soon everyone will want them.

Hacks Hacked?

Tony (VRWC) has written this thought provoking piece for discussion….

If you’ve been relying on the mainstream media for your news over the last couple of days, you’ll have no idea what the above headline refers to. If you’re well-versed in the mysteries of the internet, however, you’ll have heard at least snippets of this unfolding story: The unauthorised release of a large 160mb packet of emails, documents, and data, from The University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU).

Dr Phil Jones, head of the CRU, has confirmed these documents are genuine:

“We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites.

Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine. This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation. We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved the police in this enquiry.”

(Whether the CRU system was hacked or this was the work of a whistleblower is still subject to speculation in some circles.)

Reactions at sceptical websites range from Stephen McIntyre of Climate Audit holding his fire and saying only “Words fail me”, to James Delingpole asking whether “Climategate” is “the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?” Anthony Watt’s WUWT post was number one on wordpress at the time of writing.

Andrew Bolt is letting go with both barrels, declaring:

“It’s in fact a conspiracy of many of the world’s leading global warming scientists that involves massaging data, dodging scrutiny, hounding out sceptical editors, fudging figures, the possibly criminal destruction of data under FOI request, tax avoidance, gloating over a sceptic’s death, character assassination of sceptics, admissions of using “tricks” to “hide” inconvenient trends, farming of grants, private admissions of grave doubts in their own public warming warnings, close collusion with green groups, the joint concocting of the most alarmist announcements and much more.”

Pro-AGW blog RealClimate, the go-to site for anti-sceptic material, whose authors are involved in the scandal, has responded, saying: “The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t much to it.”

Tim Lambert at Deltoid is yet to respond.

There is one aspect of this scandal that has not been discussed, and that is the ‘data’ released along with the emails. Steve McIntyre has been conducting a running battle for several years with CRU and other institutions over the non-release of code and data used in their various papers and climate reconstructions. McIntyre has been entirely silent since his “Words fail me” comment of a couple of days ago, except for this somewhat cryptic post at his mirror site (which he has been forced to construct due to the excessive load on the Climate Audit server).

One gets the feeling McIntyre has locked himself away while he follows his usual method of auditing the science, in the light of the unexpected arrival of mountains of previously inaccessible data.

Watch this space.

Update: A search engine for the documents in question is now available online.

The Libs without Turnbull?

Tensions are rising over at The Liberal Party.

In an effort to quell the inherent division in the ranks over reaching a unified response to the Government’s proposed emissions trading scheme, reports are emerging that Liberal Party Leader Malcolm Turnbull has threatened to sack anyone from the frontbench that disagrees with the party policy.

The move follows continued speculation about his leadership fuelled by outspoken Liberal Party heavyweight Nick Minchin.

With the Coalition rabble limping along in the polls, the rebels are unfazed and claim that the divisions are so bad Mr Turnbull’s leadership will be untenable by the end of next week, whether he deals with Labor or not.

According to this report, supporters of the Senate leader, Nick Minchin, warned that Mr Turnbull could become ”collateral damage” if he pushed the party to accept a deal. ”This is a policy issue. Turnbull is not the target here, but if he has to go he has to go,” said a rebel.

The conservatives are nominating Tony Abbott as a possible replacement, while Kevin Andrews has begun trailing his coat.

Mr Abbott, who once supported passing the scheme to get it off the agenda, is now arguing that supporting it is not worth the division it will cause. This has raised suspicions of Mr Abbott positioning himself for the leadership.

Mr Turnbull was unimpressed yesterday.

“Tony’s expressed a number of views, each of which was at odds with the views he’s expressed before. He’s had a number of positions, he acknowledges that. He changes his mind on this issue, that’s fine. I have not changed my mind on this issue,” he said.

Mr Turnbull said negotiations with the Government would continue. He said people were getting ahead of themselves because the Government had yet to make an offer.

Final discussions are scheduled for tomorrow night, when the Government will make an offer. The shadow cabinet will consider it and the party room will have the final say.

”Our support for the bill will depend on the outcome of these negotiations,” Mr Turnbull said.

Liberal Party convention dictates that a frontbencher who dissents from policy should step down. Mr Turnbull is expected to enforce this to try to establish discipline. At least five frontbenchers are among the dissidents.

Mr Turnbull’s supporters are speculating the Nationals will be excluded from next week’s party room meeting. The Nationals have declared that they will not support an emissions trading scheme, no matter what concessions the Government offers – and they have no say in the leadership. They are expected to be asked to stay away.

While both sides concede Mr Turnbull has the numbers should he recommend a deal, the rebels warn the split would be so big his leadership would be undermined. ”If he gets it through and 20 senators cross the floor, can he survive? I doubt it,” said one Liberal.

Another detractor said Mr Turnbull had made the emissions scheme a leadership issue by declaring he did not want to lead a party that was not serious about climate change. ”There are no shades of grey in that, especially in a party that covers such a huge spectrum of opinion.”

Senator Minchin, who opposes any deal, said yesterday he would abide by the party room decision. Should he cross the floor or even abstain, it would be a hammer blow to Mr Turnbull.

With many in the Liberal Party disappointed with “the Turnbull experiment” and faced with the prospect of certain defeat at the next election, it’s no wonder that the hard line right wingers are beginning to emerge from the woodwork.

Turnbull is clearly unelectable. But do they have anyone else that is?

Weekend Gab Fest!

Hello,

And welcome to Weekend Gab Fest!

The place where we get to discuss anything and everything.

Today, I am a troubled individual.

Following on from Tony’s recent Truth or Lies discussion, I’ve been faced with a couple of uncomfortable predicaments.

The first involves a woman who I hardly know, who keeps calling my office for a lift home. The first time it happened was a month or so ago, when she called to introduce herself as a friend of a mutual acquaintance. After we exchanged a few pleasantries, she hit me up for a lift home. Being the obliging type that I am, I agreed, and so we spent 45 minutes in the car together, during which she broached the subject of forming a ‘car pool’ so that she wouldn’t have to catch public transport and that we could share the cost of the petrol.

Now it might just be me, but I quite like my 45 minute car drive to myself. I can listen to whatever I want on the radio – ABC news radio, Classic FM or Duran Duran at whatever volume I like.

So I politely dismissed the idea, with the ‘white lie’ that I leave the office at unpredictable times etc.

So that was a month ago.

Last week she called my office again, and I told the receptionist to take a message (which I never returned, thinking that SHE would “get the message”), and then on Wednesday of this week she has called yet again?

What am I to do? Should I feel guilty about this?

Why can’t people just leave me the fuck alone?!!

Anyway, that’s my story for the week. Let’s hear yours…

Music Jukeboxz!!

Youse ask for it, youse get it!

We don’t want your Communist Conspiracy!

With one more week of Parliament left before the end of the year, the principal players are limbering up to give us what they hope will be a stellar performance to win over the nation’s hearts and minds.

It’s all rather sadly predictable, with the dinosaurs on the right, lead by Captain Nick Minchin out in force to voice their opposition to the Government’s proposed ETS.

As the country experiences record-breaking temperatures and unprecedented “catastrophic” fire warnings, Captain Nick remains adamant that the Government should opt for a “do nothing” strategy in response to climate change.

Tony “Malcolm has my complete support” Abbott, has joined the rebellious non-believers arguing that the Coalition “needed to differentiate itself from the Government.”

It’s an interesting course of action, given that polling suggests that the overwhelming majority of Australians are in favour of Government action against climate change.

Even the National Farmers’ Federation is in favour of the scheme but The Nationals won’t have a bar of it. Go figure.

Meanwhile Sharman Stone is still determined to pursue the Government over its handling of the Oceanic Viking asylum seekers. An issue that no one could really give a rat’s arse about any more.

Nick Minchin insists his opposition to the ETS scheme is about “protecting the nation’s interests”.

Presumably this means “the interests” of his mates in big business who he previously apologised to for not taking Work Choices far enough.

Does anyone really care about what Nick Minchin has to say any more? I mean, for heaven’s sake, amongst other things, he maintains that Climate Change is some sort of communist conspiracy.

Seems to me that they’re just a rat bag group of mad right wingers who think they’re on to a good thing as they self-congratulate each other over their increasing propensity to reveal their own absurdity.

It’s a remarkable strategy. But will it be a vote winner?

Bring on the next election.

Truth, Lies, and Stereotypes.

Tony VRWC, has kindly written and sent in this thought-provoking piece for us to discuss…

George Washington is reputed to have said, as he admitted to cutting a cherry tree with his hatchet: “Father, I Can Not Tell a Lie; I Cut the Tree!” (Even though this quote, it seems, is a fiction in itself.)

Is it ever acceptable to tell a lie?

Naturally, there are some legal impediments to telling lies: libel (truth, of course, is a legitimate defence to libel), gaining financial advantage by deception, and so on. But most day-to-day lies are completely legal.

So why is lying frowned upon, in certain circles: politics, for example?

Many opponents of John Howard (and some ex-colleagues, apparently) are quick to tell you how loose he was with the truth – and they definitely do not mean this as a compliment. Some on the other side of politics are beginning to say the same same kind of thing about Kevin Rudd.

Long before Howard, Rudd, or Washington, a Florentine named Niccolo Machiavelli published in 1513 the definitive manual for the political classes, The Prince. In it, Machiavelli advised his ruler Lorenzo De Medici on the relative merits of the truth:

In Chapter 18, In What Way Princes Should Keep Their Word, he wrote:

“Yet the experiences of our time show that those princes who had little regard for their word and had the craftiness to turn men’s minds have accomplished great things and, in the end, have overcome those who governed their actions by their pledges.”

In other words, it’s OK to lie if the ends justify the means.

But to those faithful souls who prefer to assign their moral contemplations to their religious leaders, lying is not OK.

The Abrahamic religions, for example, which all rely to some degree on the Ten Commandments, defer to the Ninth of these:

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”.

Or, in certain Qur’anic versions:

“Do not withhold any testimony by concealing what you had witnessed. Anyone who withholds a testimony is sinful at heart.”

Other more practical thinkers judge the measure of a lie by the relative harm it will do. That is, if a ‘white’ lie will save a loved one from embarrassment or heartache, it can be preferable to the truth.

Where do you stand? Are your pants on fire?

Midweek Laffs!

Howabout a bit of mid-week levity then…?

Here’s an old favourite to get the ball rolling….