Posts filed under 'Samuel’s Editorials'
Well it’s time to call it a night, and I think Tony Abbott reflected the outcome of the election nicely. It’s quite clear that Tony Abbott is almost certain to be our next Prime Minister, and he recognises that. His speech was almost what you would expect to hear in a victory speech.
It would have been nicer if the margin had been bigger, or if the Liberals had managed to pick up another Canberra seat, be it House of Reps or Senate…but they’ll hold on to Gary Humphries’ seat, and the Greens won’t get a Canberra seat, so in the end I can’t really complain about that one.
Ultimately, we have managed to kick out an incompetent, wasteful government, and this is a great result. How the country will cope under a minority government is yet to be seen, however if the three independents follow their conservative roots, then the country should run quite well.
I’m happy with the result. I was expecting a close result, and as the recent days passed I became more confident of a narrow Coalition victory, so it’s great to see that it happened.
There was also a swing against Labor of about 5% to 6% in Canberra…admittedly much of it went to The Greens, but any reduction in the Labor primary vote in Canberra is a very welcome thing as this helps to make the seat more marginal and more relevant in the national discussion.
My most hearty congratulations to Tony and all of his team, including all of the tireless volunteers across the country who gave up their time to help get the party over the line.
There is still a little bit of a way to go before we will know the full makeup of our new parliament, but at this stage, it looks like the Australian public have made the right choice, and have thumbed their nose at all of those people who claimed that Tony Abbott was “unelectable” because he was “too conservative” or some such nonsense. That was always clearly an attempt at a smear campaign from people who were scared of some decent opposition…all of us who are conservatives can be proud that we have collectively managed to overcome such deranged smears, peddled (if not initiated) by the mainstream media and have managed to win back the hearts and minds of many Australians.
The task ahead now is for a sane and sensible government to return some stability to Australia, and for that government to remind the Australian public of just how much better life is when conservatives are in power. They already know how awful it is with Labor in power…we just have to prove to them on an ongoing basis that we can maintain the stability that they desire.
For now though, a great result, and one which we can cherish for a little while, but come the morning, it’s down to the business of negotiating with the independents.
On that note, I quite happily say to you “Happy Tony Abbott Victory Day”!!
Samuel
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:20am
Well that was an usual experience. I was not hassled by ANY of the pamphlet people, although I did deliberately sneak past The Greens who spotted me after I got past and started to move in my direction before obviously deciding that I was already gone and was a lost cause for them anyway.
Oddly enough, the GetUp people looked bored. This is Canberra, normally it’s the Liberal Party people who look bored, not the purveyors of Socialism and Global Warming Doom. For those awful people to look bored, is an interesting sign. It would take a lot for a Liberal candidate to take one of the ACT House of Reps seats, but without an incumbent, and with the communists looking bored, perhaps there is a chance after all.
I’m encouraged.
I’ll be heading back to the polling place after lunch to retrieve a Liberal how-to-vote card so that I can compare it to my how-to-vote card.
Samuel
August 21st, 2010 at 03:15pm
Not a lot has changed since my preliminary how-to-vote card…in fact the only change is that I’ve decided to swap the order in which I placed the Greens and Labor. I don’t expect my preferences to get down to either of them anyway, so it’s not a big change, but I have to do it on the grounds that I can no longer allow any of my preferences to flow to Labor as they:
1. Left their campaign launch until extremely late in the campaign, causing taxpayers to foot the bill for most of it, further proving their love of wasting tax dollars.
2. They, in conjunction with their union mates, ran a bunch scare ads in Canberra and surrounds about massive public service job losses. These ads were false, as Tony Abbott merely plans to cut public service job numbers through natural attrition, not by randomly firing 25% (or some other magic number) of the public service…although in many ways I’d be supportive if that had been his policy.
So, first up, the quick national version:
That’s simple, support real action and the return of sane and sensible government by voting 1 for your local Liberal or National Party candidate. If you have one of each, put them first and second. Distribute the rest of your preferences as you see fit. In the Senate, I’ll leave it up to you as to whether you wish to vote above or below the line.
Fraser
1. MILLIGAN, James Keith (Liberal Party) — obviously he must come first
2. HEDGES-PHILLIPS, Quintin (Secular Party of Australia) — I find a bunch of their policies to be quite scary, especially ones about climate change, mining taxes and illegal immigrants etc, but they have minimal chance of gaining enough seats in parliament to do much of anything, so I’d rather have them than the Labor or Green party. He also has a job which I can respect (Television Presentation Co-ordinator…and he’s not an ABC person!) and isn’t a career politician, which is more than I can say for many people from the other parties.
3. ESGUERRA, Indra (The Greens).
4. LEIGH, Andrew (Australian Labor Party).
Canberra
1. JONES, Giulia (Liberal Party) — “Giulia with a G” would have been a great addition to the Legislative Assembly, so hopefully we can get her in to the federal parliament.
2. ELLERMAN, Sue (The Greens)
3. BRODTMANN, Gai (Labor Party)
Senate
1. HUMPHRIES, Gary (Liberal Party) — I must ask that, in the ACT, Gary gets your first preference and not Matthew Watts. I ask this because in the ACT, Gary needs all the support he can get in order to block a Green from getting a seat. As such, to ensure Gary gets his quota, put him first and Matthew second…this way, once Gary has his quota, his runoff can go to Matthew.
2. WATTS, Matthew (Liberal Party)
3. CHURCHILL, Darren Mark (Democrat) — With the Labor candidates being bumped to the bottom of the list, and independent John Glynn also being demoted, the Democrats find themselves in third and fourth respectively. I do hope that my runoff doesn’t get this far…although with only two Senate seats in the ACT, I doubt that it will.
4. DAVID, Anthony John (Democrat)
5. GLYNN, John (Independent) — John’s people sent me a link with his policies…scary left-wing big government type stuff. Sorry John, but you lost third spot.
6. PARRIS, Hannah (Green Party) — Of the two Greens running in this race, Hannah has made less scary press statements.
7. HATFIELD DODDS, Lin (Green Party) — Still the scariest Green I’ve ever seen. Hopefully she disappears in to a job in which we never have to hear from her ever again after the election is over.
8. LUNDY, Kate Alexandra (Labor Party) — Labor, so right down the bottom of the list. Kate gets a slightly higher spot than David because…
8. MATHEWS, David (Labor) — David disqualified himself from getting a higher ranking in the preferences by dishonestly appearing in a photo of supportive locals in one of Mike Kelly’s (incumbent candidate for Eden-Monaro) pamphlets, and then tried to defend his position on WIN News by claiming that, as he supports Mike Kelly, he is entitled to be in the photo. David, you’re not a local unless you live in the electorate. Still, it’s nice to see that you can be as dishonest as the Labor government have been.
So there we have it. As I said a little while back, I’ll be running regular updates on the election throughout the night, however they won’t be as comprehensive or on the “every three minutes or so” as the last election.
Good luck with your voting today.
Samuel
August 21st, 2010 at 05:32am
The RiotACT brings word that the Gungahlin Drive Extension’s 2nd stage bridge, which is currently under construction, has collapsed on to the Barton Highway.
Thankfully nobody has been seriously hurt. One person was trapped and had to be freed with up to ten people being taken to hospital. (Update: In one breath the Emergency Services Agency says that there were no serious injuries, and in the next says that “The injuries range from limb to suspected spinal”. That sounds pretty serious to me.)
I’m sorry, but I can’t mince words here. Regardless of what may or may not have happened on-site, I have no doubts that the people ultimately to blame for this ar e the loopy greenies and socialists from Save The Ridge, the very people who caused delays and massive budget blowouts in the original GDE construction, which effectively prevented the second lane each way from being built at the time. If it weren’t for these people, the bridge in question would have been built at least a couple years ago, and would therefore have not collapsed during construction today.
“But it could have collapsed back then!” you say? Well, no, I don’t agree. Data from Darren Giles’ Gungahlin Weather Centre (which is closer to the bridge collapse than the Bureau’s airport measuring devices) shows that over the last few years we have had:
2006: 366.8 mm of rain
2007: 499.0 mm of rain
2008: 503.2 mm of rain
2009: 390.2 mm of rain
2010: 328.8 mm of rain to the end of yesterday (225 days of the year, which once extrapolated to a full year gives us 533.39 mm.
This makes this year our wettest of the years in which construction has been undertaken on the GDE. Rain can severely affect the integrity of setting concrete, and it is reasonable to say that, had the bridge been built in a previous year, it would have had less chance of being adversely affected by rain. Therefore, the delays caused by Save The Ridge are to blame for this bridge collapse.
Just another reason why we can’t let people like this be in charge of important infrastructure projects.
Samuel
August 14th, 2010 at 04:49pm
With the Australian Electoral Commission having today announced the candidates for the seats of Fraser and Canberra in the federal election, and the candidates for the ACT’s two senate seats, it’s time for me to publish a preliminary how-to-vote card. This is all subject to change, and a finalised version will be published either on election day, or once I have cast my vote if I decide to put in a pre-poll vote.
There are a few objectives in the how-to-vote card. Firstly, I acknowledge that for the House of Representatives at least, it’s a safe Labor seat, so whilst it’s important to try and replace Labor, it’s also important to try and reduce the margin and make it less safe for Labor if they do retain the seats. In the Senate, the main objective is to maintain at least one Liberal seat…the other objective is to keep crazy people like the Greens out of the Senate. The idea of a returned Gillard government with a Greens balance of power in the senate is downright scary.
Fraser
1. MILLIGAN, James Keith (Liberal Party) — obviously he must come first
2. HEDGES-PHILLIPS, Quintin (Secular Party of Australia) — I find a bunch of their policies to be quite scary, especially ones about climate change, mining taxes and illegal immigrants etc, but they have minimal chance of gaining enough seats in parliament to do much of anything, so I’d rather have them than the Labor party. He also has a job which I can respect (Television Presentation Co-ordinator…and he’s not an ABC person!) and isn’t a career politician, which is more than I can say for many people from the other parties.
3. LEIGH, Andrew (Australian Labor Party) — this is tough, do I put an economist with the poor sense to join Labor ahead of the business owner with the poor sense to join the Greens? In any place other than Canberra, the answer would probably be no, but I can’t risk giving the Greens enough votes to take the seat of Fraser. Without an incumbent, this is a real possibility, so as hard as it is, a Labor economist (hopefully one with more brains than Wayne “traffic jams cause inflation” Swan gets third spot.
4. ESGUERRA, Indra (The Greens) — she might be a business owner, but she’s a Green, and I can’t support the socialists and their global warming alarmism.
Canberra
1. JONES, Giulia (Liberal Party) — “Giulia with a G” would have been a great addition to the Legislative Assembly, so hopefully we can get her in to the federal parliament.
2. BRODTMANN, Gai (Labor Party) — Another case of “I’ll put Labor ahead of the Greens just to keep the Greens out”.
3. ELLERMAN, Sue (The Greens) — No comment required here.
Senate
The senate is tougher to work out because the field is, at first impression, quite poor. There’s a couple good people in there, but they’re the minority. I’m tempted to simply vote above the line for the Liberals here, because they’re the only ones who are worth a vote, but this exercise wouldn’t be much fun if I didn’t try to work out the order in which the remaining rabble should receive preferences.
1. HUMPHRIES, Gary (Liberal Party) — I like Gary personally, although I find him to be less conservative than I would like…this has probably saved him in the strangely left-wing ACT though. That said, he has been a good Senator and will be receiving my vote again. I was tempted to give him second preference and give the other Liberal candidate the first preference, as this tactic helped me to get both Jeremy Hanson and Zed Seselja over the line in the ACT election, but given the nature of the ACT, I can’t risk Gary missing out on his quota, and he must therefore get my first preference, with the other Liberal candidate receiving my runoff.
2. WATTS, Matthew (Liberal Party) — See above
3. GLYNN, John (Independent) — From here on, the field devolves significantly. I know almost nothing about Mr. Glynn, however if, like much of the ACT, he is relatively left-wing, at least he will be an independent left-winger rather than part of a socialist party machine, like all of the following candidates.
4. LUNDY, Kate Alexandra (Labor Party) — I chuck most of her pamphlets in the bin after spending a minute staring at them in bewilderment…but I’d rather have her stay in her seat, than see her displaced by a Democrat or a Green
5. CHURCHILL, Darren Mark (Democrat) — This is where I start getting desperate, trying to work out which socialist is less dangerous than the next socialist. Darren is a casual relief teacher…if I can keep him away from indoctrinating teaching children, well that’ll be something. I also think the Democrats are less dangerous than the Greens.
6. DAVID, Anthony John (Democrat) — If he can keep a Green out, that’s wonderful.
7. PARRIS, Hannah (Green Party) — Of the two Greens running in this race, Hannah has made less scary press statements.
8. MATHEWS, David (Labor) — David disqualified himself from getting a higher ranking in the preferences by dishonestly appearing in a photo of supportive locals in one of Mike Kelly’s (incumbent candidate for Eden-Monaro) pamphlets, and then tried to defend his position on WIN News last night by claiming that, as he supports Mike Kelly, he is entitled to be in the photo. David, you’re not a local unless you live in the electorate. The only reason you’re not coming last in the preferences is because of the scary woman who follows.
9. HATFIELD DODDS, Lin (Green Party) — I can’t believe that the Greens have found a local who is scarier than Kerrie Tucker. Kudos to them for doing so. Now can they please hide this person away in an office where we never have to hear from them ever again?
As I say, the order may change a tad between now and the election, but this is how I see it for now, and how I would vote if the election were to be held today.
Now that we have a finalised list of candidates, I’ll send some interview requests to the candidates who interest me. This will not be all of them…in fact it will probably not be most of them. I may expand my scope a tad and seek interviews with some interesting candidates from outside the ACT as well. Stay tuned!
Samuel
July 31st, 2010 at 04:18pm
The leaders debate is scheduled to begin at 6:30pm and end at 7:30pm, but with 72 minutes of speaking time in the debate, it would seem quite impossible for it to be over by 7:30.
Add in the time required for journalists to ask questions, the time for the MC to run through the rules and moderate the debate, and I can’t see this finishing before 7:50. In fact, I’d suggest that it will finish around 7:55, with the coverage from the networks finishing at 8pm.
I note that the ABC (whom I shall not be watching) have scheduled half an hour of analysis after the debate from 7:30-8:00, with ABC News on at the earlier time of 6pm. I’d suggest that they’ll only have a short amount of analysis and will be out at 8pm.
I’ll be watching Seven’s coverage, although I’m considering bringing in a second TV so that I can monitor Seven’s “polygraph” “polliegraph” (thanks to Cheyne for picking up this error) and Nine’s “worm” while I conduct some live blogging during the debate tonight.
I note that Seven have used a “scientific method” to select a representative cross-section of the community for the studio audience. I wonder if this scientific method is similar to that which was used by the Climategate scientists to skew and alter the data in favour of their dodgy global warming theories? Only time will tell.
Samuel
July 25th, 2010 at 03:10pm
Today’s great ideas certainly don’t seem to be of her own creation.
First up, The Australian from June 30:
TONY Abbott will spend $1.5 billion to improve front line mental health services if the Coalition is elected.
Under the Real Action Plan for Better Mental Health, the Coalition would target young sufferers of mental disorders and build a range of new mental health centres to address the problem.
The opposition pledged today to deliver 20 new Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centres, 60 additional youth headspace sites and 800 acute and sub acute early intervention beds.
Julia Gillard today via Health Minister Nicola Roxon:
Ten new youth mental health services will be established by a re-elected Gillard Labor Government within a year to help local young people cope with depression, substance abuse and other mental health issues.
The extra headspace sites have been chosen on advice from headspace, on the basis of community need.
That one took three weeks to copy and reduce in size.
Now we’ll set the time machine for March last year:
The government is being urged to introduce a $3000 cash stimulus plan to encourage drivers to crush their old cars, protecting the environment and the struggling car industry.
That was here in Australia. Over in the US, the scheme kicked off in July:
The program is offering a 35-hundred dollar allowance to those who trade in a car or truck that gets 18 miles-per-gallon or worse for a new vehicle that gets 22 miles-per-gallon or more. As further incentive, the allowance jumps to 45-hundred dollars if the new vehicle gets ten miles-per-gallon or more than the old one. The Cash For Clunkers program is being embraced by most auto dealers nationwide but they must be registered with the program to participate. Full program details are available online at www.cars.gov.
It didn’t take long for the fund to be completely overwhelmed with claims, and for congress to need to pump more money in to the fund (and increase the United States’ public debt, which is expected to reach $USD 1.47 trillion, or 41 cents of every dollar the federal government spends). There were plenty of complaints of delays in cheques being sent to motor vehicle dealers, and even more complaints of cheques never arriving due to minor errors on the forms, leaving the dealers severely out-of-pocket.
Over in Germany, where they’ve had a similar scheme, they are now looking at a large dive in car sales, which will likely result in widespread job losses.
US Congressman Ron Paul made similar criticisms of the US cash for clunkers scheme, but also noted this, which I think has been largely missed by most people:
Low-income earners who would have been in the market for those perfectly serviceable, working cars will have fewer to choose from, and those cars will probably be more expensive than they normally would have been. Automotive repair shops actively lobbied against this program, as it will destroy many of the cars they would have repaired. They were out-lobbied. And of course, Americans as a whole are hurt, because this additional bailout of auto companies comes at our expense through inflation….
Requiring cars to be destroyed and new ones made to replace them might help the auto industry in the short run, but any improved fuel economy will not make up for the environmental impact of junking one car and making a new one. So this is not a program that should really make environmentalists happy.
So, what has Julia announced today?
Prime Minister Julia Gillard has copied Barack Obama’s cash-for-clunkers scheme to shore up Labor’s climate change credentials ahead of the election.
The government promises to give motorists a $2000 rebate if they trade in a car built before 1995 for a low-emission, fuel-efficient model.
Of all the ideas Julia could have copied, this has to be one of the worst. It certainly shows that her, and her government, have no real idea about managing the economy. They’ve plunged us in to deficit, and if they’re allowed to put this plan in to place, they’ll plunge us further in to deficit, while putting many people out of work.
Samuel
July 24th, 2010 at 08:59pm
At 2am, we will move forward…but a vote for Tony Abbott, at 2am, is a vote to move back. A Gillard, Labor, government, will always move forward, we will only move forward.
I acknowledge that, due to the errors of the past, some states are not as forward as others. I therefore promise, that a re-elected Gillard, Labor, government, with its commitment to moving forward, will, over time, aim to move some states forward more than others, to compensate for an historic lack of moving forward.
Under our plan, one day, we will all be able to move forward together.
To the people of Western Australia, I say, that a vote, for the Gillard, Labor, government, will be a vote to keep you moving forward. It is our plan that, after two years of diligent work and sensible, careful, moving forward, by my trusted and loyal time lord Wayne Swan, you will have moved forward to where the eastern states are today.
Then, together, as a nation, we will all move forward together.
Julia
July 18th, 2010 at 02:47pm
As per the information I relayed to 2UE’s Stuart Bocking last week from my sources about Julia Gillard calling the election this coming weekend, one of Andrew Bolt’s readers has relayed some information to him about a sudden change to Julia’s weekend schedule which puts her in good stead to visit an appropriate official on Sunday:
Julia Gillard’s office on Thursday night cancelled her opening of the new Holocaust Centre in Melbourne next Sunday, 18 July. This has been arranged for some time, so it’s quite a move.
If she is to call the election on a day, she has to be where the G-G is (but she’s leaving for overseas Friday) or the senior Governor, who would be the NSW Governor, and that would be in Sydney.
My information says August 28 for the election, however Andrew is suggesting August 21. I’m sticking with the information from my sources though as I doubt that Julia will want to call an election with the bare minimum amount of notice, as it will be seen as a bit too much of a rush, and will further highlight her current rushed approach to policies and announcements.
Samuel
July 12th, 2010 at 01:02pm
OK, so maybe I will mention immigration policies today…just not domestic policies at this time, not until later tonight anyway.
I was very pleased to see Arizona enforcing federal laws earlier this year about illegal immigration, and was hardly surprised when various federal authorities tried to stop them. It really says a lot about the supporters of illegal immigration in the Obama regime that they would rather not be seen to support illegal immigration by doing something obvious such as repealing the laws about it, but would rather just have it happen quietly and illegally by trying to stop others from enforcing the law.
I was even more pleased overnight to spot a good idea from a Republican candidate about how to handle the illegal immigrants who have already set up camp.
Ratcheting up the debate over immigration in his state, a candidate for the Arizona utilities commission is threatening to cut off power and gas to illegal immigrants if he’s elected.
“It is not a right. It is a service,” Barry Wong, candidate for the Arizona Corporation Commission, told The Arizona Republic.
The Republican candidate argues that the policy would be a cost-saving measure for consumers.
Though it would cost money for power companies to check immigration status, he said it would ultimately save money because power companies would not have to build new plants to serve the illegal immigrant community, presumably passing on that savings to consumers. His plan, if elected to the five-person commission, would be to require utilities to check immigration status.
“There is a cost ratepayers shouldn’t have to bear because of the illegal immigrant population,” he said, while acknowledging the idea would probably attract “criticism about human-rights violations.”
[..]
Wong, who was born in the United States, is the son of Chinese immigrants. He previously served in the Arizona House of Representatives.
Note that last bit. He’s descended from people who immigrated legally. The whole point about the illegal immigration debate both here in Australia, and abroad in places such as the US, is that there are legal ways to immigrate, and there are extremely good reasons why we have these rules and procedures in place. Genuine refugees are a different kettle of fish, but people who are simply illegal immigrants do not, and should not, have the right to access public facilities, be it power or other things.
If you shouldn’t be in a country, then you have no right to expect access to the various bits of the country simply because you managed to sneak in.
Samuel
July 6th, 2010 at 02:45pm
I’ve heard it mentioned a few times that a nuclear explosion could kill off the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, but until today I really hadn’t given it much thought as BP seem to be doing a reasonable job of sealing off the oil leak…a task which is clear extremely difficult given the location of the leak and the sheer pressure at which the oil is being pumped out by natural forces (I think many people forget that the oil is being pushed out by the earth and not being pumped by a machine).
BP are getting there, but they have suffered setbacks and that region is entering its hurricane season, so it’s probably a good time to consider some alternative courses of action just in case the current efforts suffer further setbacks or fail outright.
The nuclear option, at first, seemed silly to me…but I gave it another look after Maritz (whom I have invited to resume her regular columns whenever it suits her) sent me some information about old successful Russian attempts to seal gas leaks with nuclear explosions. It turns out that the method is tried and tested, and even more interestingly the Obama administration (who have done nothing but delay everyone else’s efforts to plug the leak, clean up the oil and protect the coastline) have ruled out the nuclear option. It’s clear to me, especially given the Obama administration’s renewed push for Cap and Trade (aka, the ETS or the “Great Big New Tax on Everything” as Tony Abbott would call it) in the wake of the oil spill, that the Obama administration is loving the oil spill as it gives them the opportunity to berate private industry, and in particular the oil industry, for their “evil and nasty ways”.
So, should we consider the nuclear option? Well former Russian Minister of nuclear energy and veteran Soviet physicist Viktor Mikhailov certainly thinks so, and with good reason:
“A nuclear explosion over the leak,” he says nonchalantly puffing a cigarette as he sits in a conference room at the Institute of Strategic Stability, where he is a director. “I don’t know what BP is waiting for, they are wasting their time. Only about 10 kilotons of nuclear explosion capacity and the problem is solved.”
[..]
For some, blasting the problem seems the most logical answer in the world. Mikhailov has had a distinguished career in the nuclear field, helping to close a Soviet Union program that used nuclear explosions to seal gas leaks. Ordinarily he’s an opponent of nuclear blasts, but he says an underwater explosion in the Gulf of Mexico would not be harmful and could cost no more than $10 million. That compares with the $2.35 billion BP has paid out in cleanup and compensation costs so far. “This option is worth the money,” he says.
And it’s not just Soviet boffins. Milo Nordyke, one of the masterminds behind U.S research into peaceful nuclear energy in the 1960s and ’70s says a nuclear explosion is a logical last-resort solution for BP and the government. Matthew Simmons, a former energy adviser to U.S. President George W. Bush and the founder of energy investment-banking firm Simmons & Company International, is another calling for the nuclear option.
Even former U.S. President Bill Clinton has voiced support for the idea of an explosion to stem the flow of oil, albeit one using conventional materials rather than nukes.
[..]
The Soviets first used a nuclear blast to seal a gas leak in 1966. Urtabulak, one of its prized gas-fields in Uzbekistan, had caught fire and raged for three years. Desperate to save the cherished reserves, Yefim Slavsky, then Minister of Light Industry, ordered nuclear engineers to use the most powerful weapon in their arsenal.
“The Minister said, ‘Do it. Put it out. Explode it,’” recalls Albert Vasilyev, a young engineer and a rising star in the project who now teaches at the Lenin Technical Institute in Moscow.
Vasilyev remembers the technology behind the program with obvious pride. “The explosion takes place deep underground,” he says. “We pinch the pipe, break it and the pipe collapses.” According to Vasilyev, the blast at Urtabulak sealed the well shut leaving only an empty crater.
Matthew Simmons, energy adviser in the George W. Bush administration, who was mentioned in that article, is in charge of the Ocean Energy Institute these days. The OEA seems to be more interested in “renewable” energy than oil, and even seems to be pushing the “Peak Oil Theory” about the supposed imminent drying up of all the oil wells in the world (a theory which has surely lost credibility given the fact that many experts believe that the oil repository involved in this oil spill alone could keep spewing oil for two years if left open), so one would assume that it would be an organisation which the Obama administration would pay some attention to…but apparently not. Anyway, Matthew explained how the nuclear option would work to Sean Hannity on Sean’s radio show earlier this week:
Matthew Simmons, founder of the Ocean Energy Institute, joined Sean on the show to discuss former President Clinton’s latest comments suggesting that Navy could blow up the oil leak and cover the well with debris. “If we sent a small nuclear device it would turn the rock into glass,” informed Simmons, “President Clinton is absolutely right.” The New York Times reported that the Obama administration has already rejected the idea but the “nuclear” option seems to be growing steam. “What’s the percentage of success,” questioned Hannity. Simmons, without missing a beat replied, “100 percent.” Those are pretty good odds.
It seems to me that if the nuclear option is anywhere near as good as Simmons believes, then there are two main reasons why it hasn’t been deployed already:
1) As previously noted, the Obama administration have no intention of speeding things up as, by twisting the facts, they can use the oil spill for their own political purposes.
2) BP, who have also said that they’re not keen on the nuclear option, want to try to salvage the oil well and re-use it once the leak is plugged. Given their investment in the project to-date, this is a reasonable objective on their behalf.
We need to remember that, if BP had their own way, there is no way known that they would have been drilling so far out and so deep in the ocean; government regulations making it virtually impossible to setup drilling operation on-shore have forced BP out in to the deep ocean. We should also note (and I’m amazed that the Australian media seems to have ignored this fact, I picked it up originally from either The Wall Street Journal This Morning or The Mark Levin Show…don’t remember which one now, but it’s been fairly well reported in the US) that BP, pretty much ever since fishing in the Gulf was banned due to the oil, have been paying the fishermen to get them to use their fishing vessels to assist in the clean-up. They did this of their own accord, long before the government made any pronouncements whatsoever. It is also BP who have been doing everything in regards to slowing and stopping the oil leak.
BP are certainly not blameless in this incident as, by all reports it seems that they may have cut some corners which contributed to the leak…we’ll need to wait for the investigation to publish its findings before we know any of this for sure, however it is BP who have done more than anyone else to try to contain the damage as much as possible.
I’m not surprised at all if BP want to try to reuse the oil well…something which a nuclear explosion would probably prevent…but given the amount of time we have spent waiting for this to be plugged, and the fact that the hurricane season could very well make stopping the leak an even slower process, surely it is time for the nuclear option to be put on standby just in case BP are not able to reach their August deadline for the current efforts to succeed.
Admittedly hurricanes could be of some use in helping to disperse the oil…but that’s only really the case once the leak has been plugged, as there’s not much point in dispersing the oil if more is bubbling up to the surface all the time.
The fact is, the nuclear option is our best option to stop this oil leak if BP’s current efforts do not succeed for one reason or another.
Samuel
July 3rd, 2010 at 02:06am
An email to 2GB’s Jason Morrison who is presenting his show live from Parliament House today.
G’day Jason,
My immediate reaction to Julia Gillard is that we finally have two parties which have clearly defined and different ideological standpoints. Apart from the point of illegal immigrants, it is clear that Labor is left and Liberal is right…it’s been ages since we’ve been able to truly say that. People actually have a choice now.
Julia may have been appointed by the right-wing, but only because Kevin Rudd was sinking the ship…it is still the same team, but one which will now run with clear left-wing policies on things like global warming and workplace relations.
I say bring it on. This type of clear difference is what this country should have more of.
Regards,
Samuel Gordon-Stewart
Canberra
June 24th, 2010 at 03:25pm
Ah the perils of being at work when stuff like this happens.
It was quite a night last night with the Labor leadership up in the air. I can’t say that I’m surprised that Kevin Rudd is forcing a vote and not simply standing aside for Julia Gillard…Kevin is in there to survive, not to hand over to anyone. Kevin, although portrayed as a nice and friendly man in the “Kevin 07″ campaign, has shown his true colours a number of times since. I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with him being less nice than he was portrayed (issues of honesty aside), merely that we now all know that he is not the sort of person who is likely to simply hand over power without a fight. In some ways that is admirable…although when your administration is in as much trouble as Kevin’s clearly is, the merits of staying and fighting, and the apparent arrogance of believing that you’ve overseen a wonderful administration is somewhat disturbing.
The one thing which Kevin Rudd said in his rather angrily delivered press conference last night which interested me is that he wants to push ahead with the emissions trading scheme…this is surely another backflip after he was forced to put it on the back-burner last year. In fact it sounded to me as if Kevin made that announcement publicly in an effort to win back some much-needed support from within Labor ranks, as otherwise he would have simply promised it in private and not brought it back to the public consciousness before a plan was formulated, as doing so simply allows the opposition to run the “great big tax” argument all over again.
In my mind, it really doesn’t matter who wins the leadership spill this morning as either way it will be bad news for them. If Kevin Rudd somehow manages to cling to the leadership, then the party will appear disunited and Kevin will need to get rid of many members of his cabinet in order to silence his critics…a move which would further antagonise his opponents and give him an even worse cabinet than the one he currently has. Alternatively he could keep his cabinet and risk more high-profile Labor politicians revolting again in the near future.
If Julia Gillard wins, well I don’t know how an angry-sounding former unionist, former secretary of a socialist group, with as much, if not more blame than Kevin Rudd for many of the fiascos of this government (the Building the Education Revolution scheme, for example) is going to be able to maintain popularity for any length of time, especially once she’s in charge and starts pushing her agenda rather compromising on the agenda of others. I also got the distinct impression from Kevin Rudd’s angry speech last night that, if he loses, he’s going to emulate Mark Latham and start spreading as much dirt as possible on Julia Gillard and all of the other people who he deems to be responsible for his downfall.
Having Julia Gillard as leader would allow Labor to market itself as a left-wing organisation rather than continuing to pretend that it’s a fiscally conservative party when we all know that not a single one of them actually understandings basic free-market economics. It would clarify the position of both the government and the opposition in people’s minds, however it would also have the side-effect of seeing many Australians, who have seen what a mess left-wing policies have made of many things in this country and abroad, finally decide that a return to conservative government is what they want.
Either way, for Labor it’s bad news. That said, one party doing a bad job isn’t necessarily enough to lose them an election as new leaders tend to have a honeymoon period. It will be up to Tony Abbott and the coalition to keep the pressure on Labor if they want to win. They’re generally doing a good job if it so far, however there are a few issues of unity which the Liberals and Nationals will need to work on if they want to truly bury Labor.
So, my predictions are that I expect Julia Gillard to defeat Kevin Rudd and become our first female Prime Minister today. I expect the federal election to be pushed back until at least December to give Julia enough time to settle in as leader…and I expect her relative popularity to disappear rapidly as Australians wake up to how much of a leftist she really is, and how much blame she actually deserves for many of the fiascos of this government. The continuation of the fiascos should help in this regard.
I therefore expect Labor to get absolutely hammered in the next federal election…although I think that will happen regardless of who is leading them.
I do have to say that, should Julia Gillard become leader, I think it will be a shame for our first female Prime Minister to be one which was not chosen by the public at a general election. Julia Gillard, whilst voted in to represent her electorate, was not voted for by the people of Australia as Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd was. It is an unfortunate anomaly in any electoral system that a deputy leader can assume the leadership without the direct approval of the public. I don’t see any sensible way around this anomaly, however it would be a shame to see an historic milestone reached in such a grubby way.
Samuel
June 24th, 2010 at 05:56am
The plane load of missing mining bosses in Africa is concerning for a number of reasons. Most importantly of course it’s concerning because the plane has been missing for over 20 hours with absolutely no communications. Whilst I hope that it all turns out well for all on board the plane, I fear that it won’t.
Domestically this is concerning because of the impact it may have on the ongoing debate over the mining super profits tax (which is a crazy scheme, but that’s a debate for another time) in which the mining companies and the federal government are locked in a bitter fight. Under normal circumstances, a missing chartered flight carrying a handful of Australians somewhere in Africa wouldn’t get a lot of attention, in fact it would probably be in the news one day and not be in the news the next, however with the ongoing battle over the mining tax, anything to do with mining takes on extra importance in the media.
Neither the government nor the miners will want to be seen to be playing politics with this, however it seems somewhat inevitable that they will use it in one way or another. Take Foreign Minister Stephen Smith for example. He’s in a rather tricky situation…he runs the department which is responsible for doing everything it can to ensure the safe return of the missing miners, however he is also a member of a government which would be quite glad to have a handful of mining executives and a mining company off their backs. Stephen Smith gave a press conference yesterday as, after all, that is what the Minister for Foreign Affairs does when a group of Australians go missing overseas, however he did not look in the least bit comfortable. He looked like I might look if I was dragged out of bed at 4am to answer questions about a topic which is not as interesting as my sleep. He looked like he was forced to be there, but really didn’t care about the missing people and was just there because somebody else in the government decided that they needed to look as if they are doing the normal things for missing people.
The miners on the other hand could also use this to their own advantage, although I don’t think that they will be stupid enough to do it directly as, currently at least, they are winning the PR war over the mining tax and would know better than to use a potential tragedy for political gain…something to which Australians don’t usually take kindly.
It could be pointed out that the mining executives were en route to an almost unpronounceable mining project in a mostly unpronounceable part of Africa…the type of foreign project which would be more likely to occur on a more regular basis if the proposed mining tax forces the companies to invest more heavily in foreign projects. These less developed parts of the world have less safe transport infrastructure, and it could be argued that the mining tax would lead to a higher likelihood of lives being lost.
As I say though, it’s unlikely that the miners will say that directly, and certainly not this soon, but I think it is inevitable that the missing miners will influence the direction of the debate over the mining tax, which is sad. In the infamous words of Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste”.
I do sincerely hope that the missing miners are found safe and well. Any time that people go missing it is concerning, especially when it involves a plane in a remote area.
On the bright side though, we can usually learn from situations like this, and I think it’s safe to say that the one good thing which will definitely come out of this is that companies will be much more careful about allowing their entire board to travel together from now on.
Samuel
June 21st, 2010 at 06:56am
I thought I was dreaming this morning when I heard on the radio that Chief Turnip Jon Stanhope intends on removing bicycles from Northbourne Avenue and moving them back to their rightful place on off-road cycle paths. He even, apparently, wants to move the buses our of the already over-congested left lane of Northbourne Avenue.
It was the (lack of sane) planning of the Stanhope government which gave us on-road cycle lanes on busy roads, many of which are 80km/h zones. Northbourne doesn’t fit in to the 80km/h category, but it fits an even more dangerous category for combining cars and bicycles, it’s a super-busy road with buses which have to stop in the bicycle lanes constantly.
I’m pleased to see this policy backflip. It’s good news for cyclists and motorists alike, but it must surely put the fragile partnership between ACT Labor and the ACT Greens under further strain. The Greens have already been shafted by Labor on many occasions, and now it looks like one of the Greens key policies is the exact opposite of Labor’s policy.
The Greens believe in having more bicycles on the road and less cars on the road. Labor apparently believes in the opposite now. How they’ll work this one out when the Greens are in favour of making it difficult to even own a car in the suburbs, let alone use one on a main road, is beyond me.
With any luck, now that Labor has adopted the sensible policy of removing bicycles from our roads and placing them back on the cycle paths, the Labor/Greens partnership is dead, and we won’t have to have any more pandering to the peculiar ideas of the enviro-socialists.
Samuel
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:26am
Previous Posts