Punch on: Open thread 26/10/2012

marley says:

06:45am | 26/10/12

Actually, Neslihan, the food trucks are an excellent alternative to fast food restaurants like Maccas and Hungry Jacks.  The trucks specialise in particular cuisines - I’ve seen Mexican, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Lebanese, Turkish and Korean carts;  I’ve seen fish and chips, seafood, vegetarian, burgers, tacos, sushi, noodles, wraps,  and a whole plethora of other types of food on offer.  All of it is freshly cooked, and all of the ones I sampled in downtown Vancouver were miles ahead of the average burger chain in flavour and, I suspect, healthfulness. 

Not all fast food is junk food.

Gregg says:

06:46am | 26/10/12

If you have a read of the linked article Neshlihan, you will see it is nothing about fat and calories other than the calorific value of what propane or gas as we call it in an explosion.
”  Not only are they serious fire hazards—with large propane and gasoline tanks—but also a genuine terrorist threat. It sounds silly, but the arguments make a lot of sense:
FDNY says there are 3,100 food truck permits issued by the city, with that number increasing every year. There’s also a growing black market for permits, which opens the door for potential terrorist groups to obtain a truck with ease. “

The potential for a devastating explosion is very real, given the size of a van as the article explains, the information on a site not appearing to be connected with homeland security and whether or not the site people have been watching the show of the same name too much, I suppose if does nothing else to make people alert if not alarmed much as our own Australian alert/not alarmed program was intended, it cannot do too much harm.

TimB says:

07:42am | 26/10/12

“could the food truck be a health hazard as well?  Are we talking about a real threat to our safety and well being? Or another reason for everyone to be extra cautious at all times?”

Unless the staff manning these food trucks are out there accosting people and physically jamming food down their throats, I think we can rest easy.

Of course don’t let me stop you from keeping an eye out for the Hamburglar, he’s probably waiting to ambush you from behind a tree.

“Oh god, he’s got a double cheesburger! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES.”

NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

08:10am | 26/10/12

Hi Gregg,

Thanks for your interesting reply and you could be right to a certain extent! However I was only trying to see the lighter side to al this talk about terrorism.  Same could be said about those huge fuel tankers on our highways, right?  Yes terrorism is very real in our world. But I refuse to live my life being constantly scared of what might happen.

Back in 2003 leaving Australia with my daughter I was searched with such arrogance by customs in Sydney Airport that it put me off flying for a few good years! There surely has to be a certain line dividing the true terrorists from the people working hard to make a living from selling food.  I also remember a time where pregnant women wearing the hijab were also suspected targets for terrorism related offences.

Now looking back we can see the very absurd side to all this. Surely with all the latest technology in surveillance and security personnel employed in this field, we can all breathe a bit better, right?  Kind regards.

subotic the skinny terrorist says:

09:41am | 26/10/12

With obesity actually reaching epidemic proportions in the USA could the food truck be a health hazard as well?

Yeah, there’s no fat towel-head terrorists in NYC….

ausspud says:

11:32am | 26/10/12

@marley-With some of the food on your list you’d hope there’s a dunny in the van.

Dash says:

06:46am | 26/10/12

Nothing wrong with Mrs Carr accompanying her husband overseas. However she should pay for the cost herself as would be expected of any businessman or woman taking their spouse on a business trip.

The taxpayers of Australia should not be paying for this! She is not part of the government and has no official duties. It is a contravention of Federal policy and he ALP should force the Carrs to repay our money. And Mr Carr should be punished for misappropriation of taxpayers funds!

Anyone in the business world who tried this would lose their job. Did Gillard sign off on this at our expense?

Gregg says:

06:55am | 26/10/12

You take 30 or 40 international flights at $3000 or so a pop and I can bet they aren’t checking out the internet well ahead of time to get specials, a large portion of that $120,000 is flights alone and then there will be other assorted costs like separate ground transport if she is supposedly off doing something away from Carr and of course plenty of fancy meal/drink charges.

It is complete bullshit as there are apparently ministerial guidelines for ministers’ spouses travel and as for her visiting charities and talking to womens groups etc. as claimed by Carr, she is not endorsed as an Australian representative to be doing any of that.

It is nothing but an extension of Carr’s junket and he and Gillard need to be held to account for what is going on and maybe there is a lot of money that needs to be repaid.

Fiddler says:

07:01am | 26/10/12

yeah, I think a lot of that is dodgy figures. I seriously doubt they would put Bob in a single bed if he travelled alone and have to upgrade him when she comes.

jake says:

07:42am | 26/10/12

Dash
Yeah! Every spouse of every MP should immediately repay all expenses ever incurred and all MPs should be punished!

marley says:

07:45am | 26/10/12

@Dash - the problem with the wives of Ministers travelling is that they do in fact very often end up with “official” duties.  The Embassy has to organise a separate program for them, assign a minder, provide transport, prepare briefing notes, etc etc.  If you add in the costs of doing all of that to the hotels, meals and airfares, I suspect you’ll find Helena is costing us one helluva lot more than appears on the surface.

Debbie says:

08:12am | 26/10/12

I think most of the commentators here have no comprehension as to the cost of international business class airfares.

Tim says:

08:32am | 26/10/12

“She is not part of the government and has no official duties”

According to the information yesterday, they only allow it when the spouse has been specifically invited and is going to be helping out with official duties.

If she was just there on a holiday, then I agree she should pay her own way.

Dash says:

08:37am | 26/10/12

@jake - I don’t care who they are or what side of politics they come from, the Australian taxpayer should not be paying for spouses to travel on business trips with their husbands or wives.

When I travel overseas for business, I either don’t take my spouse or we pay for it! I don’t expect my company to pay for my spouse to take a free ride at shareholders expense!

Why should our politicians be any different? Please help me understand your logic.

You seem to think the Australian taxpayer should fork out $120K for Mrs Carr to go galavanting across the globe! She’s un-elected to represent us. She has no official capacity at all. And quite frankly, it’s a disgrace that she is being put forward as an Australian diplomat.

If Mr Carr has operated outside the guidelines for spouse travel he should be punished. And if the guidelines allow this type of junket, they should be changed!

I consider my coments to be completely reasonable and I fail to see how you can have a view that junkets at taxpayers expense is OK. And sorry, but I am sick of the logic that ‘everybody does it so it’s OK”. Well you know what? It’s not OK! A thousand wrongs do not make it right!

It’s about time people had some bloody morals. I’m amazed at how many people come on here and make excuses for people because, “they are not the only one”, or “it happened 20 years ago”, or “They may be shit but so are the opposition”.

Have some freakin balls to stand up for your ethics. Australians are far too willing to just accept bullshit from our politicians. “Ah, they’re all the same” is not an argument as far as I’m concerned.

Dash says:

08:41am | 26/10/12

@Debbie - I travel business class every time I travel overseas for work. I take two trips to Europe every year.

It’s very expensive. But what is your point? I couldn’t care less if she travelled economy, the Australian taxpayer should not be paying for this!

jake says:

09:02am | 26/10/12

Dash

I think you need to read my comment again.

I clearly said, “Every spouse of every MP should immediately repay all expenses ever incurred and all MPs should be punished!”

Which part of that logic don’t you understand?

Dash says:

09:26am | 26/10/12

@jake - sorry man. I thought you were being sarcastic. I must be paranoid with all the shit I’ve been coping here lately.

DJ says:

09:47am | 26/10/12

non issue - there are clear guidelines on parliamentary travel and the FM role is diplomatic, a lot of that involves attending functions and the spouse is useful in assisting in this diplomacy. PM and FM spouses have added gret value over the years, Anita Keating for the Sydney Olympic bid, Janette Howard relationship with the Bush’s.

Don’t sweat the small stuff, we are a mature nation and this is part of doing business.

Tim says:

09:51am | 26/10/12

Dash,
So no response to the thoughts that it was only allowed when she was specifically invited and was assisting at official duties?

If that was the case what would your thoughts be?

Hell, maybe she should have been getting paid a salary?

not so busy says:

09:53am | 26/10/12

dash, perhaps part of your problem is that you don’t realize that you’re a pleb..
If you ever move up the corporate ladder (more time working, less time blogging at work)
You will find out that for these top level execs, taking the wife when appropriate is standard practice and part of the perks of being an driven executive. You know, First / Business class airfares, Corporate American Express accounts, Chauffeur driven cars.
You’re just a pleb, Carr is the foreign minister and spends most of his time away from home. What he gets, he deserves and is entitled to.
Just think of him as if he were the CEO of a multinational company.

jake says:

09:54am | 26/10/12

Dash

No problem. I thought you were being sarcastic too.

Gregg says:

10:12am | 26/10/12

@Tim
” According to the information yesterday, they only allow it when the spouse has been specifically invited and is going to be helping out with official duties. “
And you reckon this would be for every trip Carr has made and will make for that is what he implies.

marley says:

10:22am | 26/10/12

@“not so busy” - “Carr is the foreign minister and spends most of his time away from home. What he gets, he deserves and is entitled to.  Just think of him as if he were the CEO of a multinational company. “

Interesting.  My brother in law is in fact the CEO of a multinational company, with a travel schedule that is probably heavier than Carr’s.  My sister seldom accompanies him, and when she does, he pays her airfare (usually via his several million Frequent Flyer points). 

And anyway, Carr isn’t the CEO - he’s a senior executive, nothing more.

Dash says:

10:39am | 26/10/12

@not so busy - LOL. I’m CFO here for a multinational.

And it doesn’t work the way you are suggesting. Perhaps you’re the one who’s the pleb and don’t understand?

Tim says:

10:55am | 26/10/12

Gregg,
do you have evidence to the contrary or is it just the vibe of the thing?

Somehow I don’t think we’d even be having this conversation here if it was a Liberal politician doing the travel.

ibast says:

11:07am | 26/10/12

” the Australian taxpayer should not be paying for spouses to travel on business trips with their husbands or wives.”

If I were taking on a job in private industry, where I was spending more than half my time away from home, I would try to negotiate that my partner spends much of that with me.

DJ says:

11:16am | 26/10/12

@Dash - CFO for a multinational that has time to spend all day arguing on this site with idiots like me, staggering

Dash says:

11:40am | 26/10/12

@DJ - not all day. I need to find time for the corporate lunch

Jorgen says:

12:07pm | 26/10/12

Dash also has a degree in particle physics and is building a small nuclear reactor in his spare time so he can go off the grid and not pay his share of the carbon

CFO - LOL

Dash says:

12:24pm | 26/10/12

@Jorgen, No, no physics degree. Just an economics degree with a double major in Accounting and Finance. And sorry, no nuclear reactor but I do have a post graduate professional qualification in accounting. Does that count.

I build guitars in my spare time, not nuclear reactors. That’s just silly!

But hey, think what you like.

Slothy says:

12:28pm | 26/10/12

Hang on marley, does your brother pay for his wife’s tickets using millions of frequent flyer points that he accumulated on non-work travel paid out of his own pocket? Or does he pay for it using millions of frequent flyer points accumulated on work trips paid for by his company? (I only bring it up because it’s only been the last couple of years that the public service has been banned from doing the same thing.)

I think spouse travel is ridiculous (albeit the accepted norm), but you can’t get too moral about your brother paying his wife’s own way if he’s using frequent flyer points from company-paid tickets.

I’m not sure why anybody would want to do it though – I’ve been in the entourage of a couple of ministerial trips and unless you really really love forced small talk they are boooooring, even when you have the relative freedom of just being random background girl (now with magic zoning out until the wine is served powers!)

andye says:

12:35pm | 26/10/12

@Dash - “When I travel overseas for business, I either don’t take my spouse or we pay for it! I don’t expect my company to pay for my spouse to take a free ride at shareholders expense!”

Sucks to be you then. I’ve seen spouses paid for on long trips for staff who weren’t even upper management. Definitely well below CFO.

It really depends how long the trips are. I think if someone is expected to go overseas for more than a week or so, then it can be difficult when they have a partner. I recall many years ago doing 5 days a week interstate away from my partner (at the time) and it really put a strain on our relationship. It isn’t much fun.

marley says:

12:49pm | 26/10/12

@slothy - his frequent flyer points are a taxable benefit in his compensation package.  So, he’s paying.

AJ in Perth says:

01:33pm | 26/10/12

i would like to know WTF you guys are having for lunch over east, and more importantly, does it get delivered daily by the truck-load?

Slothy says:

01:51pm | 26/10/12

Thanks for the clarification marely, makes sense.

TheRealDave says:

08:49am | 26/10/12

*yawn*

At least Erick wasn’t a one track record…..

Gregg says:

10:24am | 26/10/12

The trait was pretty well explained in Ant’s article the other day and some psycho analysis guy talking about psychopathic behaviour of Lance Armstrong Dash, the inability to face up to having done something wrong and admit it.

We likely have psychopaths in the Labor party to more than match any claims that may be made against Tony Abbott.

” She also makes it clear that Ms Gillard was actively seeking to undermine and unseat Kevin Rudd well before the coup! Hmm so she wasn’t loyal right up to the day of the coup as she says. “

You might have missed an interview Julia did where she claimed no knowledge of her staff working on a succession speech some two weeks prior to that interesting night/morning.
She was really caught out on that and the day after the interview she ammended her stance to claim she had not given her staff any directions re a speech.

I suppose that’s how it goes, like:
” Hey guys, looks like Shorty, Howsy and a few others of the gang reckon it’s time we shovelled Kevolemon aside so maybe if you were looking for something to do a succession speech could come in handy sometime! “

If Kev thought of his Chinese mates as ratfokkers, I wonder what he really thinks of Julia?, but then of course it’s all Tony’s fault!

AdamC says:

10:44am | 26/10/12

Labor denial is strange.

ReadDave, does it really not bother you that it would seem Gillard may well have conspired to knife her leader, then lied about it? Or is it just another bit of venal mendacity to throw on the pile?

TheRealDave says:

11:05am | 26/10/12

Not really, its Australian politics and BOTH parties do it so who cares? We do not vote directly for the Prime Minister, never have. We vote for a local member who can be a member of a particular party who’s policies we like or support. Thats it. What the Party’s do with their leadership is there business. We can voice our opinion every 3 and a bit years.

Or we can whinge, bitch and moan 36 seconds after victory was ascertained for the next 3.5 years because our side didn’t win….

andye says:

12:46pm | 26/10/12

@Gregg - Oh wow, she is a psychopath now? I love how you guys can keep demonising someone until they are almost inhumanly evil. I used to honestly think the part of the left that hated howard/bush with such anger was a bit unique. Nope. The right is just as capable of the same obsessive one-eyed hatred.

Here is a newsflash for you: Neither Gillard nor Abbot are psychopaths. Neither of them hate Australia or are plotting against it. Both have lied many times to us. Both desire power and votes. Both will do all sorts of things to get that. Both think their way is the right way for our country.

I bet that our good mate Dash would really struggle if for one day he had to post without negatively attacking Gillard and Labor and he had to post about what he stood for instead of what he stood against.

Gregg says:

01:09pm | 26/10/12

@andye,
It might well be educational for you to have a read of that article by Ant.

I did not say Gillard or Abbott hated Australia but do have a look at what Ant’s guy says for it is some interesting reading and parallels to see as far as traits go.

ibast says:

08:59am | 26/10/12

expulsion

HappyG says:

09:33am | 26/10/12

Nah I like explosion. A couple of explosions in parliament might be a good thing no?

subotic G. Fawkes says:

09:38am | 26/10/12

No, explosion fits perfectly….

ibast says:

09:46am | 26/10/12

very Freudian

Dash says:

09:11am | 26/10/12

*yawn*

at least persephone’s comments were intelligent and thought provoking…...

pa_kelvin says:

09:27am | 26/10/12

Bwahaha!!! I’m sure you exchanged a bit more than spit….

patsy says:

09:35am | 26/10/12

@TheRealDave-I used to mange one of those fleets of mobile canteens and the sandwiches are made in a commercial kitchen at night.  So she refused your advances, right? The majority of the sales drivers are either partnered or gay.

TheRealDave says:

11:08am | 26/10/12

I can understand how original ideas and different topic frighten you Dash. Maybe you can visualise Ju-LIAR deleivering the pies to the front of your workplace to get you going…..as a busy Multinational CFO that is….

....and I bet if Ju-LIAR was delivering them they’d be late AND cold right?

TheRealDave says:

11:10am | 26/10/12

No way Patsy - I heeded the life examples of fellow workmates well….I don’t think I have yet met a lady I’d risk the long term access to a nice a pie for lunch

ausspud says:

11:30am | 26/10/12

TheRealDave slept with a QuixSnax chick & he’s telling everybody,All under the guise of Community Service

TheRealDave says:

01:20pm | 26/10/12

I wish…no wait….

You have to sit back and weigh up - Hot Chick v Warm Pie every day for lunch….its a tough one…..

This really needs to be discussed on Can of Worms I reckon…....or at the very least it should get its own Punch Article…..

Gregg says:

10:28am | 26/10/12

Are you are a patsy or what!
The guy is already thinking extra getting stoned so have yours ready for when he returns with some lame excuse.

Or is he one of those mowing your lawn types!

patsy says:

11:09am | 26/10/12

@Gregg-No, no and no. He got me a top last time and a beer cooler for fiance.

Gregg says:

01:11pm | 26/10/12

Aah well, all seems good then, just joking anyway and have you got a bike to go with wearing it?

patsy says:

01:46pm | 26/10/12

@Gregg-I’m glad you were joking because I was, too. I don’t have a bike anymore but I did rebuild my Triumph TR25W. I was raised properly and went to the bike races as a family outings.

marley says:

09:52am | 26/10/12

Good idea.  It shouldn’t be beyond the capacity of the Punch to shuffle the order of the articles as the day goes on.

TheRealDave says:

11:12am | 26/10/12

AYE!!!

Some of the best stuff is in here! Open thread should never go off the front page each day!

pa_kelvin says:

11:14am | 26/10/12

Arrhhggg… Gone already…........ *sad* :(

Elphaba says:

11:33am | 26/10/12

AYE!  That instance where one of the articles had the comments locked, should have been moved instead of the OT.

ausspud says:

11:39am | 26/10/12

Aye
But unfotunately they might need to double the punch’s computer RAM to 512k

AJ in Perth says:

11:40am | 26/10/12

or ... if it is really that important, make “open in a new window” (or “open a new tab”) and the “refresh” buttons your friends?  :o)

subotic's firefox your fire says:

12:45pm | 26/10/12

Starting a petition to teach Post forum users to navigate “History” in their browsers.

All those in favour, like I give a toss…

Tim says:

10:57am | 26/10/12

There was extremely lax rules about the use of the credit card which is why it’s blown up now.
Basically there was no one checking what was being spent and where.

Very dodgy but not necessarily evidence that Thompson is guilty.

marley says:

12:16pm | 26/10/12

I thought the whole point was that Thompson was in fact the union executive who signed off on all credit card expenses, including his own.

andye says:

12:51pm | 26/10/12

It is amazing how certain everyone is about this guy. It is also amazing how certainty over the Thompson affair seems to be split down partisan lines. Gee whiz, what an amazing coincidence, right?

The whole thing is dodgy as high heaven. I would be about as equally unsupervised if it comes out that he was totally guilty as I would if it comes out that someone else was doing the dodge on that card and signing it off as him.

My understanding is that this is part of the defence, so I assume all that handwriting they collected recently might clear that up.

TimB says:

01:04pm | 26/10/12

“Basically there was no one checking what was being spent and where.”

Actually yes someone was checking- That person was Craig Thomson.

Marley is exactly correct.

HappyG says:

01:08pm | 26/10/12

@andye. That’s my question. Either he’s completely bloody stupid not checking a credit card he was responsible for or he’s a crook. I don’t think he’s stupid. Given what we know after the FWA investigation and the cops still taking a major interest in the case I fail to see how anyone can claim his innocence. Who knows, I may be totally wrong but if you want to make a bet…..................

Gregg says:

01:24pm | 26/10/12

@HappyG
Can’t help you out if you’re looking for inspiration and confidence that if you do a craigy ( have to see Sue about a new word in the dictionary ) you will not look like a shag on a craggy outcrop.

Best thing to do would be to run an undercover scam getting a whole heap of credit cards in fictitious nanmes and not visit the same brothel more than once.

If it is just a slush fund you want set up, see if you can set up an appointment with the PM for she might have started out all young and naive but heck, between Swannie, her and Carr&co;, she has really graduated as far as slushing about goes.

Yes, it’s pretty obvious what has gone on, even to most Labor people I suspect even if they choose to claim innocence until guilty and then there’s Julia who’ll not even make a claim other than ” Aaww come on, that was investigated years ago, just before I departed from the company ”

andye says:

02:52pm | 26/10/12

@happyG - ” Given what we know after the FWA investigation and the cops still taking a major interest in the case I fail to see how anyone can claim his innocence.”

Agreed. But I don’t think anyone can claim his guilt either. Those doing either are generally driven primarily by partisanship. To be fair, he probably IS guilty - but I don’t pretend to have certainty.

Tim says:

02:58pm | 26/10/12

TimB,
how do you know that Thompson was checking?

TimB says:

03:46pm | 26/10/12

“But I don’t think anyone can claim his guilt either. Those doing either are generally driven primarily by partisanship. “

Nope. I’m driven primarily by the evidence.

I’d be happy to take a wait and see approach if the matter was ambiguous, but the sheer amount of evidence piling up against Thomson doesn’t leave much room for ambiguity. At this point, I reckon the only way he can get off is on a technicality .

At this point his innocence would require the existence of grand conspiracy theory set in motion years before Thomson became an ALP MP let alone the swing vote of a future parliament.

And that in itself would require the ability to see into the future. And if Tony Abbott is involved as people like Freddy and Dave claim…the implications of Abbott having access to that sort of foreknowledge are staggering.

ausspud says:

11:43am | 26/10/12

I laughed,so I shall meet you there.I’ll be sitting next to John Wayne

Dash says:

11:44am | 26/10/12

See ya there!

TimB says:

11:58am | 26/10/12

That’s OK Elph. If God exists, I like to think he’s a Simpsons fan.

TubaTime says:

12:12pm | 26/10/12

I think your fate was settled well before this latest post.

At least you’ll know someone when you arrive.
” May she die a lonely, death and move onto a hate-filled eternity.”

fml says:

12:21pm | 26/10/12

I’ll see ya there Elph, we can drink mohitos and work on our tan :p

Elphaba says:

12:51pm | 26/10/12

Agreed TimB.  FML, et al, mojitos in the hot tub for everyone!

fml says:

01:50pm | 26/10/12

The whole argument is moot anyway, everyone knows life begins at 40!

9 years till I’m born, wooot wooot!

Elphaba says:

02:00pm | 26/10/12

@fml, and I so enjoyed my 30th this year, does that mean my 40th will be even better?  Yay!!

TheRealDave says:

03:10pm | 26/10/12

Awesome…...8 more months to go then…..