James Akel critica bobagem dita por Luiz Bacci em sua estreia na Band

Inacreditável a besteira que Luiz Bacci falou ontem e que está sendo reproduzida nos sites.

Está na capa do UOL a frase atribuída a Bacci de que “telespectador não quer ver gente feia no ar”

Parece que o sucesso está descendo nele.

Vou lembrar aqui o Chacrinha que não era bonito e era sucesso.

E nem venham me falar das chacretes porque Chacrinha já era sucesso antes de ter chacretes no ar.

Vou lembrar a minha querida Dercy Gonçalves, que não tinha nenhum padrão de beleza.

Também vou lembrar aqui Mazzaroppi, assim também igual lembro o Marcelo Rezende da TV Record que está longe de ser um padrão de beleza.

Lembro de Aurélio Campos da TV Tupi e poderia fazer uma coleção de nomes aqui de personalidades da tv que não tinham o chamado padrão de beleza e foram sucesso.

Acredito que Luiz Bacci esteja passando por uma fase de de enorme ansiedade e que isto esteja afetando sua postura emotiva.

Nestes momentos quanto menos juízo de valor a gente fizer evita este tipo de bobagem e outras coisas mais.

Isto não é uma crítica a Bacci a quem eu considero a grande revelação da tv nos últimos anos e que tem um enorme campo pela frente.

O que escrevo é apenas uma lembrança pra que ele pare de falar demais fora do palco.

As vozes que ecoam no campo nem sempre chegam na relva do jeito que seu autor gostaria de que fossem.

Escrito por jamesakel@uol.com.br às 09h06 NO DIA 04.08.2014

Remember when public servants were impartial?

August 5, 2014


Paddy Gourley

Too many government officials are seemingly ignoring their legal obligation to be apolitical.

Lieutenant General Angus Campbell, Joint Agency Task Force Commander, Mark Cormack, Deputy Secretary Immigration Status Resolution Group and Ken Douglas, First Assistant Secretary Immigration Status Reaolution Group, during the Senate hearing on the incident at the Manus Island detention centre, at Parliament House in Canberra on Friday 11 July 2014. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

Operation Sovereign Borders chief Lieutenant-General Angus Campbell, doing the job of a minister. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

It is becoming increasingly tricky to line up the behaviour of some senior Commonwealth officials with their legislated ”values” of political impartiality and accountability.

It is easy to feel sorry for the Treasury secretary, Martin Parkinson, whom the government is sacking slowly. It told him just after the election he was unwanted and Prime Minister Tony Abbott says the secretary will be gone by the end of this year. Why Parkinson has allowed the government to inflict this protracted departure, with all its attendant difficulties, on him is anyone’s guess. In the nicest possible way, he could have told Abbott to stick his job and taken up lucrative work in the private sector as have many of his predecessors.


Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet secretary Ian Watt appears to be politicising ABC and SBS appointments.

In the circumstances, it would have been understandable if Parkinson had become prickly about government economic policy; goodness knows there is room enough. Instead, he has come outswinging against those who’ve had the temerity to criticise the ”not your ordinary Joe” budget. In a speech early last month, he said: ”It is one thing to argue that reform proposals should be designed with fairness in mind … It is quite another to invoke vague notions of fairness to oppose all reform.”

Vague notions? What on earth is Parkinson talking about? He should send some runners to and fro to see how ”vague” unemployed young people find the budget’s move to deny them any government support for six months and tie them up in a dispiriting, useless thicket of job-application red tape.

Apart from falling for the disingenuous error of claiming all change as ”reform”, Parkinson’s barracking for the budget fits ill with Public Service Commission warnings against officials ”advocating or being perceived to advocate a government position” and avoiding ”partisan comment”. That’s exactly how his comments were taken up in ”the media”. In a contribution to John Menadue’s blog, a former fellow secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Michael Keating, said Parkinson’s outburst was ”an almost unprecedented intervention into political debate”. ”Almost” indeed, especially for those who can remember the antics of J. O. Stone when he was in Parkinson’s position at Treasury donkey’s years ago.

Crawford Australian Leadership Forum.
Global Realities, Domestic Choices

Martin Parkinson

Photography by Andrew Taylor on the 30th June 2014 at the Australian National University.

Treasury head Martin Parkinson aggressively spruiks the budget despite his slow sacking. Photo: Andrew Taylow

Then there is the head of Operation Sovereign Borders, Lieutenant-General Angus Campbell, a military officer being wasted on a civilian job. At a Senate committee on July 11, Campbell made what he called an opening ”contextual statement” covering the waterfront, if you will, on asylum seekers. It could have been made by the minister, so full was it of references to ”profiteering criminals”, ”organised criminals … motivated by profit not compassion”, ”the price of border security is eternal vigilance” and so on and on.

When he finished, Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young asked about the location of the Australian boat that was holding more than 150 asylum seekers, whose case is before the High Court. Campbell stonewalled and asked the committee chairwoman, Greens senator Penny Wright, if ”questions beyond the specific subject of this committee’s hearing are open to discussion”. Wright said they were and helpfully pointed to the inquiry’s terms of reference about ”any other related matter”.

But the general had one up his sleeve and said the matter raised by Hanson-Young was ”under consideration by the High Court, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment further”. This is an abusive use of the sub judice rule. It does not provide a blanket excuse for not commenting on matters before courts, especially if there is a competing public interest. It exists to deter public comment prejudicial to court proceedings and their results, particularly in criminal cases before juries.

Pat Campbell cover illo for Public Sector Informant, August 2014. ABC, SBS, public service, public servants, appointments, impartiality

Illustration by Pat Campbell

Some days before Campbell’s evidence, Commonwealth counsel had told the High Court where the asylum seeker boat in question was intercepted. How the disclosure of the location of the Australian government boat on which these asylum seekers were being held could in any way prejudice High Court proceedings affecting them is beyond rational imagination. These people are now getting a bracing Australian welcome at the Curtin air force base base in remote Western Australia, and Immigration Minister Scott Morrison is not allowing sub judice rules to prevent him from making potentially prejudicial comments about how none of our temporary guests will face any problems if they are taken to India.

Campbell should bone up on Public Service Commission advice that official witnesses at parliamentary committees ”should not refuse to answer questions allowed by the committee chair, unless directed by the minister”. That might come as a shock to him, as he seems to think he is responsible for deciding what is said or not said about Operation Sovereign Borders. Who could blame him, when the minister justifies refusing to be accountable by citing ”communication protocols” handed down by the general.

Let’s be clear: within the provisions of the law, it is for ministers, not military or civilian officials, to decide what information is released by governments. Morrison’s hiding behind the khaki skirt of Campbell’s ”protocols” is just another example of misusing the military for political ends.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Let’s go now to the PM&C secretary, Ian Watt. He recently distinguished himself, in a manner of speaking, by appointing Janet Albrechtsen and Neil Brown to the nominations panel responsible for making recommendations to the government on appointments to the boards of the ABC and the SBS.

To appreciate the significance of these appointments, it is necessary to go back to about 2010, when the Parliament legislated to depoliticise appointments to the ABC and SBS boards. (Albrechtsen can claim some of the credit, for, in part, it was her controversial appointment to the ABC board in 2005 that motivated the law change. Both Albrechtsen and Brown have been reasonably described as ”dyed-in-the-wool culture warriors from a long way to the right of the political spectrum”; that is, people unsuited to board positions at the ABC or SBS, or involvement in those appointments.)

Anyway, the 2010 laws included:

  • selection criteria for appointment to the boards;
  • a ban on appointing politicians and their senior staff within 12 months of them ceasing suchjobs;
  • a nominations panel to make recommendations to government about appointments to the boards;
  • a requirement for the government to table statements of reason if people without a nominations panel recommendation were to be appointed; and
  • the vesting in the PM&C secretary of an unqualified power to appoint people to the nominations panel.

As the second-reading speech made clear, the purpose of the legislation was to take ”politics out of the appointment process and focus on getting the best candidates on boards”. In appointing a couple of ”dyed-in-the-wool cultural warriors” to the panel, Watt has brought politics back into the appointment process. The current members of the panel, former departmental secretary Ric Smith and businessman David Gonski, bring no obvious political baggage to their task; it’s hard to see that Albrechtsen and Brown will bring anything other than political baggage.

How did Watt get to make these appointments? The Communications Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, says he was not consulted and: ”You have to assume that Dr Watt chose Neil Brown and Janet Albrechtsen in his own discretion.” It is to be hoped this is not so, for that looks too much like an official suppressing what should be his better judgment to enjoy the favour of his political masters.

It would have been better if Watt had received an instruction from Abbott (or someone acting on his behalf) as to whom to appoint to the nominations panel and, if he intended to abide by such an instruction, that he asked for it to be put in writing and he recorded his views about it on the file.

But we don’t know what he did. Watt was asked a number of questions about the processes he followed. He said he did not wish to comment. So while allowing the public service ”value” of accountability to languish, Watt lets doubts linger about whether he behaved in a politically partial way. However that may be, the intention of the law has been subverted.

These cases are concerning because they involve behaviour at the most senior levels of the public service that does not sit well with values in the Public Service Act about political impartiality and accountability. They are not a great example for other staff and they degrade the capacity of the most senior staff to promote the values as they should, a special responsibility for the PM&C secretary, who is the nominal head of the public service.

But is something more serious amiss? While public servants must be subservient to ministers, could it be that Kevin Rudd’s appalling administrative record, the extensive outsourcing of policy advice and management to often ill-equipped and ignorant consultants, the without-reason sacking of departmental secretaries, the Abbott government’s relentless selection of political mates for senior statutory and other positions, and the apparent growth in the power of ministerial staff has made senior officials more timid and docile in dealing with governments? It is hard to know but, if it has, government administration and the wider public interest has lost something of great value.

In particular, any loss of confidence within the leadership of the public service will likely mean that the Prime Minister and his ministers will not receive the quality of advice they need. We might not need to go back to the robust days of sirs Frederick Wheeler, Arthur Tange and Lenox Hewitt, but we may now be at the wrong end of that spectrum. The danger is that ministers and their staff will, over time, instinctively operate on an assumption that public service advice on critical matters of national interest can simply be ignored in favour of whatever favourite court jester is passing by.

This should be a prime topic for the Public Service Commission’s annual State of the Servicereport, though secretaries of departments should be among the last to be consulted in any related investigations. Ministers, however, should be at the front of the queue. And plenty of sodium pentathol should be kept on hand.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Finally, to conclude on an even more depressing note. As could have been predicted, the negotiations over pay and conditions in the public service are beginning to unravel.

The policy introduced by Employment Minister Eric Abetz maintained agency-based bargaining but with stricter requirements that any improvements in remuneration be wholly funded from ”productivity” gains.

Recent reports suggest that bargains in the departments of defence and social services will seek to justify small pay increases on the basis of things like slightly longer hours of work, slower career progression, reduced ability to accrue leave and so on. None of these things have anything whatsoever to do with productivity; if anything, they are likely to reduce it.

What appears to be happening is utterly inconsistent with the minister’s policy, and presumably he and the Public Service Commission will not approve any bargains that involve trading off conditions of employment for pay increases.

Abetz was asked if he intended to get the current negotiations back on a track consistent with his policy. He didn’t answer the question other than to say he did not wish to provide a ”running commentary” on what was going on. He now has three options – two invidious and stupid, and one sensible:

  • Allow things to proceed as at present and then not approve the bargains if reports about their justification are correct.
  • Change his policy to fit it around what is apparently going on.
  • Start again on the basis of a policy that says the public service should seek to set remuneration for its staff in a reasonably competitive position with rates for comparable work in the general labour market.

There are no prizes for picking the invidious, stupid options.

Paddy Gourley is a former senior public servant. pdg@home.netspeed.com.au


Source : The Canberra Times

Amazing Race Australia: Amazing what folks watch

August 3, 2014

David Dale

There’s a fundamental problem in trying to interview contestants in The Amazing Race Australia, which starts tonight on Channel Seven but which is already over for the contestants. They know who the winners were, but they’re contractually forbidden to give any clue on that. Even if they let something slip, I wouldn’t want to know, because I like trying to work out in the early episodes who will be the best travel strategist.

In the two preview episodes I’ve seen, a Melbourne couple called Ashleigh and Jarrod (known to each other as Ash and Jazz) and a New Zealand couple called John and Murray (known to each other as Johnny and Muzza) emerge as the most interesting teams. Ash is clearly a lot smarter (and more patient) than Jazz. Our interview started awkwardly when I asked which countries they’d most like to go back to and explore more deeply, now the need for speed is gone.

Jarrod: “We’ve been pretty well drilled, and it’s the same for all the contestants. We pretty much can’t give away the countries we’ve been to or how many we’ve seen. We’ve got to be pretty quiet on those sort of things.”

And please don’t draw any conclusion from Ash and Jazz being in Bali when I spoke to them. It was for a friend’s wedding, arranged before they started the race, so it can’t be taken to mean they recently came into $250,000. But then again, Jazz indicates, we shouldn’t assume they had not come into the prize money.

Ash was a little more forthcoming when asked about the selection process they went through. They sent the production company a video of themselves last October, and then had to fill in questionnaires and go through a series of interviews.

Ashleigh: “January was pretty full on. They were pretty much making sure you were mentally fit, healthy enough for the challenges, and you were the sort of personality they were looking for. They were sifting through all the different personality types to get 10 teams of completely conflicting and opposing personalities that would make relatively good television.”

She wouldn’t speculate on the qualities that led to her and her husband to be chosen, but I’d guess their good looks had a bit to do with it. Different factors were in play for Johnny and Muzza.

John: “Psychologically they are trying to get a bit of drama going. They are looking for as many character derailments as possible, so they can continue to make beautiful TV. We were the right kind of crazy. They thought we had the ability to play up and be larrikins and attention seekers, and also turn on each other.”

Both teams were slightly anxious about how the editors would portray them in the series, and they have their explanations ready.

John: “Muzza and I have a little more depth than we personify. We act more larrikin to make people feel comfortable. You think we’re fighting but we’re really enjoying each other’s company. We’ve got some core principles that we follow and we won’t budge from. We didn’t want to revert to the whole ‘win at all costs’ mentality. We wanted to do something really pure, be open and honest.”

Jarrod: “Me and Ash are pretty thick-skinned people, so if Ash wasn’t performing or I wasn’t performing, we can sort of stir each other on. We’ve been together for 11 years so if Ash had to have a go at me for something, or if I have a go at her for something, it’s so what, move on, get on with it. You don’t have time to put on a fake persona, you’re so in the moment; things just come out before you have time to think. It’s a pretty natural show, I think.”

The Amazing Race starts on August 4 at 9pm on Seven.

Pay and stay

Is television worth paying for? Two-thirds of Australia has offered a firm No to that question. The one-third who answered Yes seem to be mostly sports fanatics, who use their Foxtel subscriptions at this time of year to catch footy that isn’t available on Nine or Seven.

A tiny proportion subscribe to Foxtel because they want access to recent dramas from America and Europe. These people get pissed off at this time of year because the series they pay for – such as Game of Thrones, House of Cards, Mad Men, Veep, True Detective, The Americansand Justified – have finished their seasons, so there’s not much return for the $89 a month you need to shell out to receive drama channels such as showcase, FX, Soho and SyFy. They’re even more tempted to cancel their subscriptions when they see that SBS has started offering, for free, cult programming such as Fargo, From Dusk To Dawn, Borgen and Real Humans.

Those frustrated dramaphiles may be mollified by the arrival on August 3 of a new Foxtel channel called BBC First, which will schedule British series alleged to be almost as exciting as the output of America’s legendary HBO. But they will be outnumbered by the non-subscribers who will be mightily disgruntled that BBC First is about to fence off several popular series that used to be available free on the ABC, such as Call the Midwife and Death in Paradise.

This will force ABC viewers to confront my opening question all over again. To encourage them to change their answer to Yes, BBC First has put up on YouTube two of its hot new series –The Musketeers (a swashbuckler based on the Alexandre Dumas novel, starring the new Doctor Who, Peter Capaldi) and Peaky Blinders, about a criminal gang operating in Birmingham just after World War I. You can sample them free until next Sunday.

These are a few of the other experiences BBC First will offer: Women In Love, a two-part miniseries based on the D.H. Lawrence novel and starring Rosamund Pike (yes, there are nude scenes); The Politician’s Husband, a three-part miniseries about the shifting balance of power in a political marriage, starring David Tennant and Emily Watson; Burton and Taylor, a telemovie about divorced couple Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, starring Helena Bonham Carter and Dominic West (from The Wire and The Hour); The Fear, a four-part miniseries about a crime boss whose empire disintegrates as he sinks into dementia; The Honourable Woman, an eight-parter in which Maggie Gyllenhall plays the daughter of “a Zionist gunrunner”, tangled in warfare between Israelis and Palestinians.

Is that enough to convince you? If you’re one of the 15 million Australians whose household does not receive Foxtel, here’s my suggestion: Hang on to your money until January. That’s when FX starts playing the new season of Justified, and shortly before showcase launches new seasons of House of Cards, Veep and Game of Thrones. You’ll catch repeats of all the BBC First shows, and be in time for the new seasons of Call the Midwife and The Fall (starring Gillian Anderson as an English detective in Ireland).

Six months later, when Foxtel’s annual drama drought sets in again, you can cancel your subscription and go back to SBS.

BBC First starts on August 3 at 9am with The Musketeers.

Truths of reality

The term “reality show” is much abused. It originated with fly-on-the-wall fabrications such asBig Brother but has now been stretched to include talent quests such as The Voice.

The producers of a new ABC show called Reality Check have gone for the widest possible definition, because that enables them to offer these scary statistics: There are 41 international versions of MasterChef (with the Swedish version known as Masterkock); 49 Big Brotherhouses, 48 clones of Survivor and 42 X-Factors. And 56 nations have Got Talent.

If you’re thinking of auditioning, you will need Reality Check’s answers to these questions: How important is a back story? How do you cast a bachelor? What is “Frankenbite editing”? When does a “journey” begin? Why does every country in the world have a toothless old guy who’s taught his parrot to sing opera?

Reality Check starts on on August 13 at 9pm on ABC.

For a daily update, go to smh.com.au/entertainment/blog/the-tribal-mind


Source : The Canberra Times