Kevin Handrick writes: Re. “Licence to krill: when conservationists and corporates cosy up” (Monday). Cathy Alexander’s piece about the compromising of WWF by its association with Blackmores over krill oil reminds me of other documented evidence for such compromising.
In his book The Truth About IKEA, former senior executive of that company Johan Stenebo states that IKEA has had a deliberate policy of supporting both Greenpeace and WWF so that they are less inclined to criticise the use by IKEA of timber from virgin forests such as those of Siberia. IKEA uses the timber from some 200 million trees each year. Some cash to environmental organisations was seen by the company as an excellent investment for continuity of supply.
John Richardson writes: Re. “The moral inconsistency of Australia’s stance on Iran” (yesterday). A great piece by NAJ Taylor, which dramatically underscores the emptiness of Australia’s contribution to positive and constructive international relationsand amplifies our appalling behaviour in recently purchasing a seat, even if only on a temporary basis, on the UN Security Council.
The smug but muddleheaded conceit that our political leaders pass off as triumphant diplomatic surefootedness is matched only by the breathtaking hypocrisy that inevitably characterises the behaviour of nations incapable of acting independently.
Jim Carden writes: Gotta hand it to Lance and his well-oiled PR machine. The softening up with unconfirmed reports of plans to apologise, the set up with his cheated charity workers, victims still in his game of manipulation, the execution itself with Oprah, the leaking, the framing. Geez, is it possible to hate someone so much yet be in awe of their propagandism?
Brilliant stuff. I lost track of the number of references to “a source familiar with the situation” or “a source present at the meeting”. It brings to mind a PM chief of staff who once told me about a certain blond, bespectacled PM’s modus operandi when it came to leaks. “A source close to the PM is, inevitably, the PM,” he said.
Tony Abbott and women
Kathy Duffy writes: All the discussion about Tony Abbott and his need for a strategy to demonstrate he can and does have good relationships with women including his chief of staff is not what the core of the issue is about. The core of the issue, and it appears the Prime Minister knows this, is Tony Abbott is unable to engage and be confident and personally comfortable in dealing with women who have power. This inability is a significant stumbling block. Women see it and will walk away from him. This personal-based fear is not an attribute we want in a leader.
He can’t engage with the Prime Minister with grace, good humour, love of the debate yet knowing such a person with power can bring out that fear in him. It is not about pictures of Tony Abbott at home, articles about him and his sister or the Marie Claire article about his chief of staff. They are irrelevant.